MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124547615 · doi:10.1136/bmj.e5278

Sample size calculations: should the emperor's clothes be off the peg or made to measure?

2012· article· en· W2124547615 on OpenAlexaff
Geoff Norman, Sandra Monteiro, Mhd. Suhyb Salama

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmperorMeasure (data warehouse)ClothingSample size determinationSample (material)StatisticsEconometricsPsychologyComputer scienceMathematicsHistoryData miningArchaeologyPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ethics committees require estimates of sample size for all trials, but statistical calculations are no more accurate than estimates from historical data. Geoffrey Norman and colleagues propose some “one size fits all” numbers for different study designs

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)0.360
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.810
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3600.810
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.016
Scholarly communication0.0070.016
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0160.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.008

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 head0.855
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
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

Citations189
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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