Systematic Review of Expert Elicitation Methods as a Tool for Source Attribution of Enteric Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expert elicitation is a useful tool to explore sources of uncertainty and to answer questions where data are expensive or difficult to collect. It has been used across a variety of disciplines and represents an important method for estimating source attribution for enteric illness. A systematic review was undertaken to explore published expert elicitation studies, identify key considerations, and to make recommendations for designing an expert elicitation in the context of enteric illness source attribution. Fifty-nine studies were reviewed. Five key themes were identified: the expert panel including composition and recruitment; the pre-elicitation material, which clarifies the research question and provides training in uncertainty and probability; the choice of elicitation tool and method (e.g., questionnaires, surveys, and interviews); research design; and analysis of elicited data. Careful consideration of these themes is critical in designing and implementing an expert elicitation in order to reduce bias and produce the best possible results. While there are various epidemiological and microbiological methods available to explore source attribution of enteric illness, expert elicitation provides an opportunity to identify gaps in our understanding and where such studies are not feasible or available, represents the only possible method for synthesizing knowledge about transmission.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.073 | 0.276 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".