MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122908200 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62296-5

Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research

2014· article· en· W2122908200 on OpenAlexaff
An‐Wen Chan, Fujian Song, Andrew J. Vickers, Tom Jefferson, Kay Dickersin, Peter C Gøtzsche, Harlan M. Krumholz, Davina Ghersi, H. Bart van der Worp

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWomen's College Hospital
FundersNational Cancer InstituteProstate Cancer FoundationNational Institutes of HealthYale UniversitySidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic CancersFoundation for Cardiovascular Research
KeywordsDisseminationQuality (philosophy)Value (mathematics)Research ethicsData collectionData sharingMedicineOpen scienceHealth careProtocol (science)Medical educationPublic relationsComputer scienceAlternative medicinePolitical science

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)0.252
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.475
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2520.475
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.064
Scholarly communication0.0280.030
Open science0.0060.019
Research integrity0.0250.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.702
GPT teacher head0.625
Teacher spread0.077 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainReproducibility
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

Citations923
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207