MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency

2011· article· en· W2093043874 on OpenAlexaff
Gordon Guyatt, Andrew D Oxman, Regina Kunz, James Woodcock, Jan Brożek, Mark Helfand, Pablo Alonso‐Coello, Paul Glasziou, Roman Jaeschke, Elie A. Akl, Susan L. Norris, Gunn Elisabeth Vist, Philipp Dahm, Vijay K. Shukla, Julian P. T. Higgins, Yngve Falck–Ytter, Holger J. Schünemann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in HealthMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpurious relationshipEconometricsCredibilityStatisticsQuality (philosophy)Statistical hypothesis testingConsistency (knowledge bases)Omnibus testPoint estimationPublication biasMeta-analysisConfidence intervalMedicineSubgroup analysisPsychologyMathematics

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

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)0.124
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.498
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1240.498
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.042
Bibliometrics0.0180.016
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0230.008
Research integrity0.0190.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.010

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 head0.996
GPT teacher head0.790
Teacher spread0.206 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2,369
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical EpidemiologySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207