MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034981056 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1041299

Registering CIHR-funded randomized controlled trials: a global public good

2004· letter· en· W2034981056 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
David Moher

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2004
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research UK
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialAgency (philosophy)MedicineFunding AgencyPublic healthTrial registrationFamily medicinePolitical scienceSurgeryPublic relationsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On July 26, 2004, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the largest publicly funded granting agency in Canada, announced that all new CIHR-funded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) must be registered with an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN).[1][1]

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.261
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.610
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2610.610
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0070.020
Scholarly communication0.0180.021
Open science0.0090.009
Research integrity0.1070.073
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.009

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.494
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.029 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReproducibility
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2004
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207