MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Towards a framework for evaluating and grading evidence in public health

2015· article· en· W2113358830 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Harder, Muna Abu Sin, Xavier Bosch‐Capblanch, B. Coignard, Helena de Carvalho Gomes, Phillippe Duclos, Tim Eckmanns, Randy Elder, Simon Ellis, Frode Forland, Paul Garner, Roberta James, Andreas Jansen, Gérard Krause, D Lévy-Brühl, Antony Morgan, Joerg J Meerpohl, Susan L. Norris, Eva Rehfuess, Alex Sanchez‐Vivar, Holger J. Schünemann, Anja Takla, Ole Wichmann, Walter Zingg, Teun Zuiderent‐Jerak

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Policy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and ControlWorld Health Organization
KeywordsPreceptPublic healthGrading (engineering)Public relationsInternational healthMedicineHealth policyPolitical scienceMedical educationNursingEngineeringLaw

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.961
GPT teacher head0.743
Teacher spread0.218 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueHealth PolicySame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207