MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119798793 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2006.17877

Moving Forward on Both Systematic Reviews and Deliberative Processes

2006· article· en· W2119798793 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John N. Lavis

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystematic reviewConfusionPresentation (obstetrics)Context (archaeology)Management scienceKnowledge managementPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsComputer sciencePsychologyEngineeringMEDLINEMedicineHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Systematic reviews are increasingly seen as helpful "knowledge support" for managers and policy makers, and deliberative processes are starting to be seen as promising, locally contextualized "decision support." Increases to the flow of systematic reviews should be complemented by efforts to facilitate the retrieval, and adapt the presentation, of the available stock of systematic reviews. Research and other evidence should be combined in transparent ways to facilitate cross-context learning. The challenge for managers and policy makers in moving forward will be to avoid the confusion that comes from the branding of both systematic reviews and deliberative processes.

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)0.508
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.498
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5080.498
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.010
Bibliometrics0.0190.012
Science and technology studies0.0080.076
Scholarly communication0.0430.108
Open science0.0140.060
Research integrity0.0480.077
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.010

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 head0.659
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.103 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations29
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207