MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599039958 · doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0832-6

Erratum to: Characteristics and knowledge synthesis approach for 456 network meta-analyses: a scoping review

2017· review· en· W2599039958 on OpenAlexafffund
Wasifa Zarin, Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Vera Nincic, Afshin Vafaei, Emily Reynen, Sanober S. Motiwala, Jesmin Antony, Shannon Sullivan, Patricia Rios, Caitlin Daly, Joycelyne Ewusie, Μαρία Πετροπούλου, Adriani Nikolakopoulou, Anna Chaimani, Georgia Salanti, Sharon E. Straus, Andrea C. Tricco

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicine

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.101
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.658
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1010.658
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.009
Bibliometrics0.0160.019
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0090.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.011

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 head0.967
GPT teacher head0.674
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial · Other

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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBMC MedicineSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207