MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2500917129 · doi:10.1016/j.diii.2016.05.014

Agreement studies in radiology research

2016· article· en· W2500917129 on OpenAlexaff
Behzad Farzin, Jean‐Christophe Gentric, Mary Pham, Sophie Tremblay-Paquet, Lyne Brosseau, Claudie Roy, Sarah Jamali, Miguel Chagnon, Tim E. Darsaut, F Guilbert, Olivier Naggara, Jean Raymond

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostic and Interventional Imaging · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicReliability and Agreement in Measurement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversité de MontréalHôpital Notre-DameHealth Sciences CentreCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalMedical physicsReliability (semiconductor)Sample size determinationNuclear medicineStatisticsInternal medicine

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

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)0.502
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.833
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5020.833
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0260.019
Science and technology studies0.0050.022
Scholarly communication0.0090.017
Open science0.0060.012
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.512
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.032 · 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 designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations48
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueDiagnostic and Interventional ImagingSame topicReliability and Agreement in MeasurementFrench-language works237,207