Bibliographic record
Abstract
This month, we feature the Cochrane Review assessing the effect of strategies to increase the response to postal questionnaires. Cochrane methodology reviews are published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review alongside the more usual Cochrane Reviews of the effects of healthcare interventions. They are produced by the Cochrane Methodology Review Group. Cochrane methodology reviews have a similar structure to the healthcare reviews, but with a few subtle changes to their section headings, to reflect the fact that they cover studies assessing the methodology of research in health and social care, rather than the care itself. They are preceded by published protocols and produced with the same rigour and attention to detail as Cochrane Reviews of healthcare. For example, evidence from methodological research is included or excluded on the basis of explicit criteria. Each review covers a specific and well-defined area of methodology and data from included studies might be combined statistically to increase the power of the findings. In such cases, the review may include graphs or tables presenting the data from each individual study, along with the overall average.
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 | 0.007 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.346 | 0.238 |
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".