MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125828308 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1041255

So what has the Cochrane Collaboration ever done for us? A report card on the first 10 years

2004· letter· en· W2125828308 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jeremy Grimshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2004
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionHealth careSystematic reviewCochrane collaborationMEDLINEReport cardMedicineComputer scienceNursingPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Cochrane Collaboration is a unique, worldwide not-for-profit organization that aims to help people make well-informed decisions about health care by preparing, maintaining, and promoting the accessibility of, systematic reviews of the effects of health care interventions.[1][1] A decade ago, C.

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)0.128
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.470
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1280.470
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.007
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0060.010
Scholarly communication0.0190.031
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0740.050
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.013

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations61
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207