MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2132012869 · doi:10.2147/jmdh.s43952

A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature

2013· article· en· W2132012869 on OpenAlexaff
Lehana Thabane, Samaan, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Sarah Daisy Kosa, Borg Debono, Dillenburg, Zhang, Vincent Fruci, Brittany B. Dennis, Monica Bawor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyStrengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiologySystematic reviewMedicineConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsMEDLINEData extractionProtocol (science)Family medicineAlternative medicineHealth careMeta-analysisPathology

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)0.424
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.710
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4240.710
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.013
Bibliometrics0.0470.049
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.016
Open science0.0100.010
Research integrity0.0080.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.653
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.039 · 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
DomainReporting
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

Citations196
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare→Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews→French-language works237,207→