MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076469305 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66875-4

The Good Clinical Practice guideline: a bronze standard for clinical research

2005· article· en· W2076469305 on OpenAlexaff
David A. Grimes, David Hubacher, Kavita Nanda, Kenneth F. Schulz, David Moher, Douglas G. Altman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsGuidelineHarmonizationClinical PracticeMedicineGood clinical practiceFamily medicineAlternative medicinePolitical sciencePathology

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)0.444
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.665
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4440.665
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.011
Bibliometrics0.0130.011
Science and technology studies0.0130.038
Scholarly communication0.0330.017
Open science0.0210.020
Research integrity0.1160.140
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.009

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 head0.651
GPT teacher head0.689
Teacher spread0.038 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations163
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207