MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558333356 · doi:10.1111/obr.12483

Qualities of robust systematic reviews and theoretical frameworks: a response to Backholer and Peeters

2016· letter· en· W2558333356 on OpenAlexafffund
Dana Lee Olstad, Megan Teychenne, Leia Minaker, Daniel R. Taber, Kim D. Raine, Candace I. J. Nykiforuk, Kylie Ball

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity Reviews · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of WaterlooImpact
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPhysical activityPublic healthGerontologyObesityPopulationMedicineLibrary scienceMedical educationPsychologyPhysical therapyEnvironmental healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Qualities of robust systematic reviews and theoretical frameworks: a response to Backholer and Peeters

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)0.247
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.725
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2470.725
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.007
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0080.023
Scholarly communication0.0230.026
Open science0.0100.019
Research integrity0.1060.135
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
DomainMethods
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObesity ReviewsSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207