MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Evaluating Meta-analyses in the General Surgical Literature

2005· article· en· W2081069584 on OpenAlexaff
Elijah Dixon, Morad Hameed, Francis Sutherland, Christopher J. Doig

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisMEDLINEConcordanceCritical appraisalSystematic reviewEvidence-based medicineFamily medicineAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptMetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
grokMetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
opusMetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.358
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.630
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3580.630
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.052
Bibliometrics0.0280.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.984
GPT teacher head0.697
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

MetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (broad)

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designSystematic review · Observational
DomainMethods
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

Citations131
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Surgery→Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews→CategoryMetaresearch→French-language works237,207→