MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129100419 · doi:10.1177/2168479015579520

A Model Data Management Plan Standard Operating Procedure: Results From the DIA Clinical Data Management Community, Committee on Clinical Data Management Plan

2015· article· en· W2129100419 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Brand, Diana Bartlett, Mary Farley, Miriam Fogelson, Jan Bart Hak, Grace Hu, Olivia D. Montana, Jan Holladay Pierre, Johann Proeve, Samina Qureshi, Anita Shen, Peter Stockman, Richard Chamberlain, Kristin D. Neff

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsSyncrude (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData managementPlan (archaeology)Standard operating procedureData management planProcess managementComputer scienceEngineering managementMedical physicsOperations managementMedicineBusinessEngineeringData mining

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.099
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0990.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0160.013
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.704
GPT teacher head0.560
Teacher spread0.144 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueTherapeutic Innovation & Regulatory ScienceSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207