MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077547761 · doi:10.1136/ebn.8.1.7

Contribution of the<i>Cochrane Library</i>to the evidence-based journals

2005· article· en· W2077547761 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCochrane LibraryLibrary scienceInformation retrievalComputer sciencePsychologyWorld Wide WebMEDLINEPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.311 · 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