Context-aware grading of quality evidences for evidence-based decision-making
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Processing huge repository of medical literature for extracting relevant and high-quality evidences demands efficient evidence support methods. We aim at developing methods to automate the process of finding quality evidences from a plethora of literature documents and grade them according to the context (local condition). We propose a two-level methodology for quality recognition and grading of evidences. First, quality is recognized using quality recognition model; second, context-aware grading of evidences is accomplished. Using 10-fold cross-validation, the proposed quality recognition model achieved an accuracy of 92.14 percent and improved the baseline system accuracy by about 24 percent. The proposed context-aware grading method graded 808 out of 1354 test evidences as highly beneficial for treatment purpose. This infers that around 60 percent evidences shall be given more importance as compared to the other 40 percent evidences. The inclusion of context in recommendation of evidence makes the process of evidence-based decision-making "situation-aware."
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it