The cochrane library oversight committee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main output of The Cochrane Collaboration's more than 20,000 global participants is The Cochrane Library.The library is growing in both size and quality, and the appointment of David Tovey as Editor in Chief in 2008 was an important step in ensuring its continued development.At the same time that David was appointed, the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group (CCSG) decided that there should also be an oversight committee for The Cochrane Library.As the remit of the Committee says, "The primary purpose of the Oversight Committee is to support the Editor in Chief's editorial independence by providing a mechanism for avoiding or resolving disputes about the content of The Cochrane Library or any editorial positions taken by the Editor in Chief in respect to the Library that may arise between the Editor in Chief and the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group, other Cochrane entities or individuals or the publisher for The Cochrane Library."[1] The Oversight Committee is now in place.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.287 | 0.523 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.049 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.022 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.111 | 0.148 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".