MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121758806 · doi:10.1016/j.injury.2006.02.001

Grading the evidence: Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation

2006· article· en· W2121758806 on OpenAlexaff
Bradley Petrisor, Jennifer L. Keating, Emil H. Schemitsch

Bibliographic record

VenueInjury · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrading (engineering)Randomized controlled trialEvidence-based medicineQuality of evidenceEvidence-based practiceBest evidenceComputer scienceMedical physicsMedicinePsychologyAlternative medicineMedical educationEngineeringSurgeryPathology

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 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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.254
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.254
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0430.034
Bibliometrics0.0380.025
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0150.007
Research integrity0.0130.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.008

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 head0.905
GPT teacher head0.590
Teacher spread0.315 · 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
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

Citations99
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInjurySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207