MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600432762 · doi:10.21815/jde.016.011

Top‐Cited Articles in Problem‐Based Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis and Quality of Evidence Assessment

2017· review· en· W2600432762 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Education · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationBibliometricsEvidence-based medicineRanking (information retrieval)MEDLINEQuality of evidenceFamily medicineMedicinePsychologyLibrary scienceAlternative medicinePolitical scienceInformation retrievalMeta-analysisComputer sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aims of this study were to identify characteristics of the top-cited articles in problem-based learning (PBL) and assess the quality of evidence provided by these articles. The most frequently cited articles on PBL were searched in April 2015 in the Science Citation Index Expanded database (List A) and Google Scholar database (List B). Eligible articles identified were reviewed for key characteristics. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines were used in assessing the level of evidence. The number of citations varied (62 to 923 on List A and 218 to 2,859 on List B). Countries that contributed the majority of articles in both lists were the United States, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Canada. No significant correlations were found between number of citations and number of years since published (p=0.451), number of authors (p=0.144), females in authorship (p=0.189), non-medical authors (p=0.869), number of institutions (p=0.452), and number of grants (p=0.143), but a strong correlation was found with number of countries involved (p=0.007). Application of the Oxford hierarchy of evidence showed that 36 articles were at levels 4 and 5 of evidence. This study found that research articles represented approximately one-third of PBL articles assessed and reported mainly on questionnaire-based studies. The most highly cited articles occupied top-ranking positions in the journals in which they were published. The lower level of evidence observed in most top-cited articles may reflect the significance of innovative ideas or content of these articles. These findings have implications for dental educators and dental researchers.

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.

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
gemmaBibliometricsMetaresearch
Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0370.040
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.391
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.184 · 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