MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626277945 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)31267-9

The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health

2017· article· en· W2626277945 on OpenAlexaff
Harry Rutter, Natalie Savona, Ketevan Glonti, Jo Bibby, Steven Cummins, Diane T. Finegood, Felix Greaves, Laura Harper, Penelope Hawe, Laurence Moore, Mark Petticrew, Eva Rehfuess, Alan Shiell, James Thomas, Martin White

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersPublic Health Research ProgrammeEconomic and Social Research CouncilPublic Health EnglandMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchChief Scientist OfficeWellcome Trust
KeywordsPublic healthScopusHealth policyPopulation healthPolitical sciencePublic relationsLibrary scienceMedicineMEDLINEComputer scienceNursingLaw

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

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)0.212
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.432
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2120.432
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.004
Bibliometrics0.0130.007
Science and technology studies0.0050.056
Scholarly communication0.0310.073
Open science0.0100.014
Research integrity0.0190.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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 head0.981
GPT teacher head0.762
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1,274
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207