MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150654705 · doi:10.3109/00207454.2015.1052430

Important considerations for case–control study conduct and reporting

2015· letter· en· W2150654705 on OpenAlexaff
Khadija Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Neuroscience · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl (management)PsychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Important considerations for case–control study conduct and reporting." International Journal of Neuroscience, 126(8), pp. 759–760

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)0.308
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.558
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.854

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3080.558
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0290.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.751
GPT teacher head0.630
Teacher spread0.120 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207