Welcoming systematic reviews to the Journal of the Medical Library Association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.053 | 0.154 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.044 | 0.048 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".