MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A pragmatic critical appraisal instrument for search filters: introducing the CADTH CAI

2008· article· en· W2060659600 on OpenAlexaffabout
Greg Bak, Monika Mierzwinski‐Urban, Hayley Fitzsimmons, Andra Morrison, Michelle Maden‐Jenkins

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Information & Libraries Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsLibrary and Archives CanadaCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFilter (signal processing)Computer scienceCritical appraisalAgency (philosophy)Information retrievalSelection (genetic algorithm)Data scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To identify or develop a critical appraisal instrument (CAI) to aid in the selection of search filters for use in systematic review searching. The CAI is to be used by experienced searchers without specialized training in statistics or search filter design. METHODS: Through extensive searching and consultation, one candidate instrument was identified. Through expert consultation and several rounds of testing, the instrument was extensively revised to become the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) CAI. RESULTS: The CADTH CAI consists of ten questions and can be applied by experienced searchers with a moderate knowledge of search filter methodology. CONCLUSION: The CADTH CAI provides experienced searchers with a means of selecting the search filter that is most methodologically sound.

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)0.075
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0750.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.653
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.122 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations24
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Information & Libraries JournalSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207