MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608129084 · doi:10.1177/2380084417705823

Applied Mixed Methods in Oral Health Research: Importance and Example of a Training Program

2017· article· en· W2608129084 on OpenAlexafffund
Belinda Nicolau, Geneviève Castonguay, Alissa Levine, Quan Nha Hong, Pierre Pluye, Kelvin I. Afrashtehfar, Maha M. Al‐Sahan, Maryam Amin, Paula Benbow, Ana Cristina Borges‐Oliveira, Mario Brondani, Roberto Carlos de Oliveira, Marie‐Ève Caty, A. J. A. Chang, Aimée Dawson, Elham Emami, Carolina Freitas Lage, Shauna Hachey, Herenia P. Lawrence, Sabrina Lopresti, Narjara Conduru Fernandes Moreira, Ana Paula Rebouças, Eman Shanna, Diana Laura Solis Suárez, Farzeen Tanwir

Bibliographic record

VenueJDR Clinical & Translational Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDental Education, Practice, Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersRéseau de Recherche en Santé Buccodentaire et Osseuse
KeywordsOral healthRelevance (law)Training (meteorology)Medical educationQualitative researchStatement (logic)MultimethodologyPsychologyMedicinePedagogyPolitical scienceFamily medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge Transfer Statement: Mixed methods are increasingly being used in research studies on complex oral health issues. Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches, this methodology produces in-depth results of great relevance to researchers, clinicians, managers, and policy makers at each level of the oral health care system. A 5-day training program in applying oral health mixed methods research can be replicated by other institutions and contribute to capacity building and training faculty, students, and research professionals.

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)0.332
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.327
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3320.327
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.014
Open science0.0050.019
Research integrity0.0100.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.922
GPT teacher head0.804
Teacher spread0.118 · 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
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJDR Clinical & Translational ResearchSame topicDental Education, Practice, ResearchFrench-language works237,207