MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2538726216 · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000001299

Why Shouldn’t A Priori Analysis Plans Be Publicly Available for All Observational Studies?

2016· letter· en· W2538726216 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew Davidson, Hilary P. Grocott

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyA priori and a posterioriIntensive care medicineInternal medicineEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.318
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.784
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3180.784
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.017
Scholarly communication0.0170.023
Open science0.0110.005
Research integrity0.0300.049
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.007

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 head0.874
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainReproducibility
GenreCommentary

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiologySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207