MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753768674 · doi:10.20381/ruor-20835

Systematic Review Protocol: Outcome Predictors and Care Plans for Women Pregnant Using Assisted Reproductive Technologies

2017· article· en· W2753768674 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria P. Vélez, Laura Gaudet, Candyce Hamel, Micere Thuku, Kelly D. Cobey, Misty Pratt, Becky Skidmore, Brian Hutton

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Ottawa - Library · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)Reproductive technologyOutcome (game theory)Assisted reproductive technologyMedicineSystematic reviewHealth carePregnancyFamily medicineMedical educationMEDLINEGynecologyPolitical scienceAlternative medicineInfertilityLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The planned reviews will be performed with funds provided from a successful team grant application submitted to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The funders will play no role in the design, conduct or final approval of the review protocol or final review manuscripts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Ottawa - LibrarySame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207