MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Critical EPICOT items were absent in Cochrane human immunodeficiency virus systematic reviews: a bibliometric analysis

2015· review· en· W2258105780 on OpenAlexaff
Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Tamara Kredo, Vivian Welch, Sara Mursleen, Stephanie Ross, Babalwa Zani, Nkengafac Villyen Motaze, Leah Quinlan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsBruyèreUniversity of OttawaInstitute of Population and Public HealthMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystematic reviewMedicinePsychological interventionPopulationMeta-analysisHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Family medicineResearch designMEDLINEClinical study designDemographyGerontologyClinical trialEnvironmental healthPsychiatrySocial scienceInternal 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)0.182
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.692
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1820.692
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.019
Bibliometrics0.0800.088
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.954
GPT teacher head0.748
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designObservational
DomainReporting
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology→Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews→French-language works237,207→