Contribution of the<i>Cochrane Library</i>to the evidence-based journals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systematic reviews, particularly those published in the Cochrane Library , now form a substantial part of the content of ACP Journal Club , Evidence-Based Medicine , Evidence-Based Nursing , and Evidence-Based Mental Health . This contribution has grown steadily since the first publication of the Cochrane Library . What makes the systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library so amenable to the evidence-based journals? Up to the end of 2002, 4 evidence-based abstract journals were produced by the Health Information Research Unit (HIRU) at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The first was ACP J Club , begun in 1991. Published bimonthly by the American College of Physicians (ACP), each issue contains 25 research abstracts with clinical commentaries on internal medicine topics. Evidence-Based Medicine , published bimonthly by the BMJ Publishing Group starting in …
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 | 0.173 | 0.629 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.089 | 0.065 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.038 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.013 |
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".