MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2102685275 · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-24

A protocol for a systematic review on the impact of unpublished studies and studies published in the gray literature in meta-analyses

2013· review· en· W2102685275 on OpenAlexafffund
Christine Schmucker, Annette Bluemle, Matthias Briel, Susan Portalupi, Britta Lang, Edith Motschall, Guido Schwarzer, Dirk Bassler, Katharina Mueller, Erik von Elm, Joerg J Meerpohl

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersEuropean CommissionMcMaster University
KeywordsMedicineGrey literatureMeta-analysisSystematic reviewMEDLINECochrane LibraryPublication biasGray (unit)Protocol (science)Inclusion and exclusion criteriaGerontologyAlternative 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
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Reporting · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
gptMetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (narrow)Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: Methods · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewmedium
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)0.183
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.299
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1830.299
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.019
Bibliometrics0.0180.019
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0140.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1400.029

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 head0.918
GPT teacher head0.673
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

MetaresearchMeta-epidemiology (narrow)Meta-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
DomainReporting · Methods
GenreProtocol

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

Citations41
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic Reviews→Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews→CategoryMetaresearch→French-language works237,207→