MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2340122852 · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-15-0990

Systematic Review and Meta-study Synthesis of Qualitative Studies Evaluating Facilitators and Barriers to Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening

2016· review· en· W2340122852 on OpenAlexafffund
Gladys Honein‐AbouHaidar, Monika Kastner, Vincent Vuong, Laure Perrier, Corinne Daly, Linda Rabeneck, Sharon E. Straus, Nancy N. Baxter

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthUniversity of TorontoCARE CanadaCancer Care OntarioPublic Health OntarioSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsColorectal cancerMedicineQualitative researchCancerFamily medicineCancer screeningThematic analysisColorectal cancer screeningModalitiesOncologyInternal medicineColonoscopy

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)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.191
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
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 score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.191
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.019
Bibliometrics0.0170.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.324
GPT teacher head0.561
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 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

Citations295
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→