MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084033360 · doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9795-1

Between Black and White: Examining Grey Literature in Meta-analyses of Psychological Research

2013· article· en· W2084033360 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Bellefontaine, Catherine M. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Child and Family Studies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrey literatureMeta-analysisInclusion (mineral)PsychologyPsychological interventionPublication biasSystematic reviewWhite (mutation)Applied psychologySocial psychologyClinical psychologyMEDLINEMedicinePolitical sciencePsychiatry

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

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
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptMetaresearchScholarly communication
Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
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)0.214
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.498
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2140.498
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0340.052
Bibliometrics0.0200.015
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.010
Open science0.0070.010
Research integrity0.0100.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.932
GPT teacher head0.639
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 2 models reading the full record.

MetaresearchScholarly communication

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

Study designObservational
DomainReproducibility
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

Citations90
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Child and Family StudiesSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207