MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2258016256 · doi:10.3945/ajcn.115.117309

Working group reports: evaluation of the evidence to support practice guidelines for nutritional care of preterm infants—the Pre-B Project

2016· review· en· W2258016256 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel J. Raiten, Alison Steiber, Susan E. Carlson, Ian J. Griffin, Diane Anderson, William W. Hay, Sandra Robins, Josef Neu, Michael Georgieff, Sharon Groh‐Wargo, Tanis R. Fenton

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAcademy of Nutrition and DieteticsAmerican Society for Parenteral and Enteral NutritionAmerican Academy of Pediatrics
KeywordsGuidelineMedicineNeonatal intensive care unitSystematic reviewPediatricsParenteral nutritionNursingEnteral administrationMEDLINEIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.113
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.275
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1130.275
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.013
Bibliometrics0.0100.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.416
GPT teacher head0.604
Teacher spread0.188 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations49
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical NutritionSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207