MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149040660 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2006.17874

Informing Policy Making and Management in Healthcare: The Place for Synthesis

2006· article· en· W2149040660 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Catherine Pope, Nicholas Mays, Jennie Popay

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Context (archaeology)Health careKnowledge managementKnowledge transferBusinessPublic relationsProcess managementEngineering ethicsManagement sciencePolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research synthesis has an important role supporting the transfer of knowledge between researchers and healthcare decision-makers. But if our goal is to make knowledge more useable and context specific, then extending the scope of systematic reviews or producing syntheses with policy makers and managers may be insufficient. Dialogues, partnerships and reinterpretations of evidence in context will help us achieve this goal.

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)0.365
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.591
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3650.591
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.006
Bibliometrics0.0180.017
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0230.035
Open science0.0070.011
Research integrity0.0160.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.249
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations41
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207