MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080636013 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2014.23843

Critical Appraisal through a New Lens

2014· article· en· W2080636013 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Leonard F. Stevens, Ellie J Ricketts, Jill Bruneau

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLens (geology)PsychologyNurse AdministratorNursingSociologyMEDLINEPolitical scienceMedicineOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many websites, nursing education sessions and journal articles stress the importance of critical appraisal of research for evidence-informed decision-making. Prior to starting our doctoral program, we assumed that because a study was published, it had strong evidence. In reading research reports we, like others, had a tendency to focus on results and sample size, taking what was presented more or less as fact or at face value.

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 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)0.267
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.376
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2670.376
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0430.016
Science and technology studies0.0070.070
Scholarly communication0.0440.025
Open science0.0080.013
Research integrity0.0110.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.723
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.163 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing leadershipSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207