MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616970147 · doi:10.3205/hta000128

Q-SEA – a tool for quality assessment of ethics analyses conducted as part of health technology assessments

2017· article· en· W2616970147 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Mae Scott, Bjørn Hofmann, Iñaki Gutiérrez‐Ibarluzea, Kristin Bakke Lysdahl, Lars Sandman, Yvonne Bombard

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityEngineering ethicsHealth technologyMedicineInclusion and exclusion criteriaManagement scienceHealth careComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringAlternative medicineLawPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Q-SEA is the first instrument for quality assessment of ethics analyses in HTA. Further refinements to the instrument to enhance its usability continue.

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)0.280
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.557
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2800.557
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0120.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.005

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 head0.525
GPT teacher head0.603
Teacher spread0.078 · 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
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207