MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059543925 · doi:10.1177/014572170403000106

The Literature Review: Demystifying the Literature Search

2004· review· en· W2059543925 on OpenAlexaff
Linda J. Patrick, Sharon Munro

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Diabetes Educator · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)Computer scienceInvestment (military)World Wide WebPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provided an overview of the strategies, tools, and techniques for searching the literature. Also discussed was how to retrieve, manage, and report relevant information that has been found. There are many books and computer tutorials about each of these topics available in libraries and bookstores. It may be worth-while to investigate the availability of courses in your workplace and community for fine-tuning your search skills. A hands-on opportunity to search relevant databases under the guidance of a librarian or experienced researcher would be worth the investment. One key message is to be organized when approaching the literature. Careful planning and organization can help ensure that your research trip is a productive one.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0010.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Diabetes EducatorSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207