MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158079075 · doi:10.1002/14651858.ed000078

Systematic Reviews of Preclinical Animal Studies can Make Significant Contributions to Health Care and More Transparent Translational Medicine

2014· editorial· en· W2158079075 on OpenAlexaff
Merel Ritskes‐Hoitinga, Marlies Leenaars, Marc T. Avey, Maroeska M. Rovers, Rob Scholten

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlindingSystematic reviewClinical trialPublication biasPreclinical researchMEDLINEAnimal testingTranslational researchAlternative medicineMeta-analysisMedical physicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contains fulltext : 133895.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

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)0.106
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.404
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1060.404
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.008
Bibliometrics0.0200.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0100.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.322
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
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

Citations89
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207