Systematic Search and Reporting Techniques Applied to the Gray Literature: A Review of Canadian School Breakfast Program Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This poster was presented at the Mosaic ’16 (Medical Library Association) Conference on May 17, 2016, Toronto, Ontario. Abstract: Methods: A grey literature search plan was developed to incorporate four different searching strategies: i) grey literature databases, ii) customized Google search engines, iii) targeted websites; and, iv) consultation with contact experts. These complementary strategies were used to minimize the risk of omitting relevant sources. Since abstracts are often unavailable in grey literature documents, items’ abstracts, executive summaries, or table of contents (whichever was available) were screened. Screening of publications’ full-text followed. Data were extracted on the organization, year published, who they were developed by, intended audience, goal/objectives of document, sources of evidence/resources cited, meals mentioned in the guidelines, and recommendations for program delivery. Results: The search strategies for identifying and screening publications for inclusion in the case study review was found to be manageable, comprehensive, and intuitive when applied in practice. The four search strategies of the grey literature search plan yielded 302 potentially relevant items for screening. Following the screening process, 15 publications that met all eligibility criteria remained and were included in the case study systematic review. Conclusions: This presentation demonstrates a feasible and seemingly robust method for applying systematic search strategies to identify web-based resources in the grey literature. The search strategy we developed and tested is amenable to adaptation to identify other types of grey literature from other disciplines and answering a wide range of research questions. This method should be further adapted and tested in future research syntheses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.408 | 0.607 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.093 | 0.075 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".