MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122441443 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000141

How Can We Support the Use of Systematic Reviews in Policymaking?

2009· article· en· W2122441443 on OpenAlexaff
John N. Lavis

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersPan American Health OrganizationEuropean CommissionEuropean Observatory on Health Systems and PoliciesWorld Health Organization
KeywordsSystematic reviewMEDLINEBest practiceHealth policyPolitical sciencePublic relationsData scienceMedicineManagement scienceEngineering ethicsHealth careComputer scienceEconomicsEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

John Lavis discusses how health policymakers and their stakeholders need research evidence, and the best ways evidence can be synthesized and packaged to optimize its use.

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)0.738
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.941
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7380.941
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.011
Bibliometrics0.0400.026
Science and technology studies0.0070.026
Scholarly communication0.0450.071
Open science0.0150.020
Research integrity0.0550.046
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.639
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.117 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations254
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207