MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The CROWN Initiative: journal editors invite researchers to develop core outcomes in women's health

2014· editorial· en· W2149682360 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Khalid S. Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueContraception · 2014
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScopusPsychological interventionClinical trialSystematic reviewMEDLINEAlternative medicineSpecialtyFamily medicineMeta-analysisNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical trials, systematic reviews and guidelines compare beneficial and nonbeneficial outcomes following interventions. Often, however, various studies on a particular topic do not address the same outcomes, making it difficult to draw clinically useful conclusions when a group of studies is looked at as a whole [1]. This problem was recently thrown into sharp focus by a systematic review of interventions for preterm birth prevention, which found that among 103 randomised trials, no fewer than 72 different outcomes were reported [2].

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)0.301
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.527
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3010.527
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.007
Bibliometrics0.0170.019
Science and technology studies0.0090.017
Scholarly communication0.0470.039
Open science0.0130.031
Research integrity0.0470.038
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.034

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.351 · 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
DomainMethods
GenreEditorial

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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContraceptionSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207