MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124535217 · doi:10.1017/s1481803500011829

Does outcome feedback make you a better emergency physician? A systematic review and research framework proposal

2009· review· en· W2124535217 on OpenAlexaff
Curtis F. Lavoie, Howard Schachter, Aviva T. Stewart, Jessie McGowan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Emergency Medicine · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of OttawaMontfort HospitalOntario Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental HealthChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOMedicineMEDLINEEmergency departmentOutcome (game theory)Medical emergencyCochrane LibraryIntervention (counseling)Health careRandomized controlled trialEmergency medicineFamily medicinePsychological interventionNursingSurgery

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)0.366
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.492
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3660.492
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.024
Bibliometrics0.0220.013
Science and technology studies0.0040.011
Scholarly communication0.0120.012
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0110.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designSystematic review
DomainEvaluation
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Emergency MedicineSame topicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsFrench-language works237,207