MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2128911553 · doi:10.1136/bmj.f1049

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement

2013· article· en· W2128911553 on OpenAlexaff
Don Husereau, Michael Drummond, Stavros Petrou, Chris Carswell, David Moher, Dan Greenberg, Federico Augustovski, Andrew Briggs, Josephine Mauskopf, Elizabeth Loder

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalInstitute of Health EconomicsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistGovernment (linguistics)Statement (logic)Delphi methodConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsSystematic reviewEconomic evaluationPsychological interventionPublic relationsDelphiPolitical scienceMedicineMEDLINEMedical educationPsychologyNursingComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.541
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.813
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5410.813
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.013
Bibliometrics0.0250.031
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0180.012
Open science0.0100.009
Research integrity0.0140.030
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.016

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 head0.487
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.055 · 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
DomainReporting
GenreMethods

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

Citations1,765
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→