International Health Consumers in The Cochrane Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Cochrane Consumer Network (CCNet) is an international organization of volunteers, operating through the Internet, to enhance the accessibility and relevance of Cochrane systematic reviews and to promote evidence-based health care through consumer and community participation. This article presents the accomplishments and challenges of involving consumers in The Cochrane Collaboration as indicated by 2 surveys (CCNet-led evaluation 2006 and External consultant-led evaluation 2009). While consumers are effectively involved in commenting on prepublished Cochrane systematic reviews, opportunities exist to strengthen consumer participation in prioritizing, producing, and disseminating Cochrane systematic reviews and in promoting greater understanding and application of evidence-based health care in various countries and cultures. It is important that consumer participation adds value for all involved in the process and that it is developed in partnership.
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 | 0.057 | 0.185 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.070 | 0.010 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".