MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2375639168

Principles for International Registration of Protocol Information and Results from Human Trials of Health-related Interventions-The Ottawa Statement,Part One

2006· article· en· W2375639168 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Junchao Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evidence-Based Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatement (logic)Protocol (science)Psychological interventionTrial registrationComputer scienceClinical trialMedicineAlternative medicinePolitical scienceLawPathologyNursing
DOInot available

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearchOpen science
Domain: Reporting · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes
Not applicablelow
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Reporting · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablemedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.647
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.662
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6470.662
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.027
Bibliometrics0.0250.032
Science and technology studies0.0180.029
Scholarly communication0.0320.015
Open science0.0290.011
Research integrity0.0580.077
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.027

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 head0.542
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.011 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

MetaresearchOpen science

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreMethods · Commentary

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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evidence-Based MedicineSame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207