MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement

2016· article· en· W2299177375 on OpenAlexaff
Jessie McGowan, Margaret Sampson, Douglas M Salzwedel, Elise Cogo, Vicki Foerster, Carol Lefebvre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistGuidelineMEDLINEEvidence-based medicineComputer scienceInformation retrievalPeer reviewSystematic reviewWorld Wide WebMedicinePsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.250
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.544
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2500.544
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.009
Bibliometrics0.0200.015
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0140.013
Open science0.0120.012
Research integrity0.0200.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.021

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 head0.946
GPT teacher head0.750
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations5,631
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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