MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The research question

2006· article· en· W2121200741 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy M. Heddle

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood groups and transfusion
Canadian institutionsCanadian Blood ServicesMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationLibrary scienceMedicineOperations researchComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When contemplating my first clinical research project, I met with a local hematologist/oncologist with expertise in clinical research methodology. I explained the issue that I wanted to investigate and he responded—“What is your research question? ” I reexplained the issue one more time, and again he responded—“But, what is your research question?” During our one-hour session, he asked me to articu-late my research question at least six times. I was beginning to think he was either deaf or just not lis-tening carefully to my responses. However, I did leave his office with a well-defined question and as time went by, I came to realize that he had taught me the most important aspect of clinical research— developing a good research question!

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)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.222
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.222
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0120.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.015

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations82
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusionSame topicBlood groups and transfusionFrench-language works237,207