MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150061145 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.081849

Registering systematic reviews

2009· article· en· W2150061145 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sharon E. Straus, David Moher

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystematic reviewCochrane LibraryCochrane collaborationMEDLINEMedicineComputer scienceLibrary scienceData scienceInformation retrievalAlternative medicinePathologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More than 5500 systematic reviews, at various stages of completion, are currently available in the Cochrane Library ([www.cochrane.org][1]) and 9000 systematic reviews are critically appraised for validity in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, or DARE ([www.crd.york.ac.uk][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)0.084
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.279
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0840.279
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0300.008
Bibliometrics0.1030.087
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1080.056

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 head0.551
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.072 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations112
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207