MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2733018469 · doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2017.04.035

Evidence-based Criteria for Assessment of Visual Field Reliability

2017· article· en· W2733018469 on OpenAlexafffund
Jithin Yohannan, Jiangxia Wang, Jamie Brown, Balwantray C. Chauhan, Michael V. Boland, David S. Friedman, Pradeep Y. Ramulu

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Eye InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDecibelMedicineGlaucomaClinical trialOphthalmologyInternal medicineAudiology

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)0.259
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.542
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2590.542
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.033
Bibliometrics0.0260.014
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0120.009
Research integrity0.0100.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations192
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmologySame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207