MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041925814 · doi:10.1016/s0095-5108(03)00025-3

Cochrane neonatal systematic reviews: a survey of the evidence for neonatal therapies

2003· article· en· W2041925814 on OpenAlexaff
John C. Sinclair, Diane E Haughton, Michael B. Bracken, Jeffrey D. Horbar, Roger F. Soll

Bibliographic record

VenueClinics in Perinatology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical Centre
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsMedicineSystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialCochrane LibraryRelative riskMEDLINENeonatologyClinical trialPediatricsIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePregnancyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.072
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.354
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0720.354
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.008
Bibliometrics0.0440.049
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.288
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.227 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations52
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueClinics in PerinatologySame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207