MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051922705 · doi:10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.001

Welcoming systematic reviews to the Journal of the Medical Library Association

2014· editorial· en· W2051922705 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret Sampson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Medical Library Association JMLA · 2014
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularitySystematic reviewMedical libraryMedical literatureCochrane LibraryMEDLINELibrary scienceAssociation (psychology)Data scienceComputer scienceMedicinePsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scientists began to favor systematic reviews in the 1990s as a means of overcoming some of the limitations of classic review articles. The Cochrane Collaboration defines systematic reviews as a form of synthesis that examines a predefined question or issue using systematic, explicit methods to identify the list of studies to be included, critically appraise and filter the research, and collect data from these studies to generate a replicable review 1. In spite of their growing popularity in the medical community and the frequent involvement of librarians in their creation, librarians seem to have been slow to take complete advantage of this important tool to further their own profession.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.451
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.818
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4510.818
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.009
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0190.002
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.216 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Medical Library Association JMLASame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207