MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101735855 · doi:10.1002/sim.1285

The Cochrane Collaboration – how is it progressing?

2002· article· en· W2101735855 on OpenAlexafffund
Andreas Laupacis

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistics in Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research Council Canada
KeywordsCochrane collaborationSystematic reviewQuality (philosophy)Randomized controlled trialMedicineMEDLINEAlternative medicineCochrane LibraryFamily medicinePolitical sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the last seven years, the Cochrane Collaboration has rapidly developed into an important international organization, producing high quality systematic reviews of randomized trials. Challenges, which it will likely meet, include maintaining the quality of the reviews, ensuring that reviews are done of the most common therapies for important diseases, securing stable funding, and making the format of the reviews more accessible for the average clinician.

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)0.350
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.603
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.650
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3500.603
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.007
Bibliometrics0.0300.035
Science and technology studies0.0060.017
Scholarly communication0.0320.043
Open science0.0110.011
Research integrity0.0330.043
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.011

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 head0.576
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.016 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistics in MedicineSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207