MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Methodological quality and completeness of reporting in clinical trials conducted in livestock species

2009· article· en· W2062890872 on OpenAlexafffund
Jan M. Sargeant, Rodney Elgie, James Valcour, Jacqueline Saint-Onge, Alastair M. Thompson, Pasha Marcynuk, K. Snedeker

Bibliographic record

VenuePreventive Veterinary Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersInstitute of Population and Public HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInstitut pour la Recherche en Santé PubliquePublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsBlindingConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsChecklistRandomizationMedicineClinical trialRandomized controlled trialRigourFamily medicineResearch designPsychologyStatisticsInternal medicineMathematics

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)0.499
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.827
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4990.827
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.050
Bibliometrics0.0150.016
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.992
GPT teacher head0.763
Teacher spread0.229 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainReporting
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

Citations90
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePreventive Veterinary MedicineSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207