MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2417387058 · doi:10.1503/cjs.017314

Users’ guide to the surgical literature: how to perform a high-quality literature search

2015· article· en· W2417387058 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Daniel Waltho, Manraj Kaur, Brian Haynes, Forough Farrokhyar, Achilleas Thoma

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality (philosophy)MEDLINEInformation retrievalData scienceWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article "Users" guide to the surgical literature: how to perform a "literature search" was published in 2003, but the continuing technological developments in databases and search filters have rendered that guide out of date. The present guide fills an existing gap in this area; it provides the reader with strategies for developing a searchable clinical question, creating an efficient search strategy,accessing appropriate databases, and skillfully retrieving the best evidence to address the research question.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.200
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2000.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.718
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.218 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations29
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207