MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2598530016

So many databases, such little clarity

2008· article· en· W2598530016 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Len Kelly, Natalie St Pierre-Hansen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Family Physician · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDiverse academic research themes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOMEDLINEInformation retrievalComputer scienceBibliographic databaseCLARITYMedicineDatabaseBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To describe the scope, content, and organization of commonly used medical databases and search strategies, using a search of the topic aboriginal to illustrate the various ways the topic is covered in each of the databases. DESIGN Comparison of literature searches. METHOD Seven common medical databases were searched using all the MeSH terms that are permutations of aboriginal. A secondary analysis using the “remove duplicates” function in Ovid was done to identify articles specific to each database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Number of articles found by each search. RESULTS Searching by MeSH terms often produces very different information from that found when searching by text word. A unique term, such as Ojibway, is best found with a text word search. A more general term, such as Aborigines, is best searched by subject using a MeSH term. Many databases can be searched through Ovid and might all use different MeSH terms for the same reference. PubMed default searches that use MeSH terms and text words simultaneously often produce very large numbers of articles. In searching for North American aboriginal using MeSH terms, MEDLINE and PubMed produced the most references, followed by Healthstar. Calculating distinct “all aboriginal” references in EMBASE, Healthstar, and PsycINFO indicated that MEDLINE produced nearly all the articles found in Healthstar. In fact, MEDLINE alone produced 88% of the articles found in MEDLINE and EMBASE and 79% of the articles found in MEDLINE and PsycINFO. CONCLUSION Although several researchers and medical librarians have noted that MEDLINE and EMBASE are quite distinct databases, suggesting both need to be searched for a complete search, we did not find that to be the case for the topic aboriginal. The results of this study demonstrate that using MEDLINE produces the most extensive coverage of literature on the topic aboriginal. To fully capture the complete body of available literature on other subjects might require searches of many databases, depending on the topic.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.232
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.232
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0160.024
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0180.022
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.019

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 head0.215
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.161 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Family PhysicianSame topicDiverse academic research themesFrench-language works237,207