MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2468739077 · doi:10.15173/m.v1i25.847

Re-evaluating the Hierarchy of Evidence: What is the Gold Standard?

2014· article· en· W2468739077 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Brandon Tang, Stephanie Wan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Meducator · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGold standard (test)HierarchyPeer reviewMedicinePolitical scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On October 16, 1846, William Morton took part in an operation to remove a tumour from a patient’s neck. However, this surgery was unlike any other that had been completed before. 1 Morton’s stage was the local surgical amphitheater in the Massachusetts General Hospital, and his main prop was the ether, a novel substance that promised to alleviate pain in an unprecedented manner. Within the amphitheater, scientists, dentists, and doctors eagerly awaited the awakening of Morton’s patient after the surgery. To everyone’s delight, after awakening, the patient announced that he did not feel any pain during the operation. Barely a month later, this local stage turned global when Henry Jacob Bigelow published this case study in the Boston Medical & Surgical Journal. 2,3 To this date, the birth of anesthesia is considered a landmark medical discovery.

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 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)0.439
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.732
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4390.732
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0270.012
Bibliometrics0.0330.018
Science and technology studies0.0070.016
Scholarly communication0.0240.027
Open science0.0150.009
Research integrity0.0110.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.858
GPT teacher head0.605
Teacher spread0.253 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe MeducatorSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207