Avaliação Crítica da Literatura: roteiro para a sessão de artigos de revista
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Em 1981, o Canadian Medical Association Journal publicou uma serie de cinco artigos, intitulados How to read clinical journals (Canadian, 1981), onde era explicado como fazer a avaliacao critica da literatura medica, ou dito de outra maneira, a avaliacao da qualidade da informacao na area da saude. A aceitacao desta serie e os novos conhecimentos gerados desde entao resultou numa nova serie publicada desta vez no Journal of the American Medical Association, sob o titulo User's guide to the medical literature (JAMA, 1992). Esta ultima serie e a revisao e ampliacao da serie anterior, e repetiu o mesmo sucesso, sendo amplamente divulgado e adotado nos mais variados ambientes cientificos. Todo este esforco foi realizado no sentido de uniformizar a forma como era realizada a avaliacao critica da literatura em diferentes instituicoes. O conhecimento deste modelo de avaliacao critica vem sendo utilizado amplamente nas reunioes de revista (Journal clubs) dos cursos de graduacao, dos programas de residencia e pos-graduacao.
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 | 0.082 | 0.301 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.039 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.039 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".