MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772519847 · doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1751-x

Scoping review of response shift methods: current reporting practices and recommendations

2017· article· en· W2772519847 on OpenAlexafffund
Tolulope T. Sajobi, Ronak Brahmbatt, Lisa M. Lix, Bruno D. Zumbo, Richard Sawatzky

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality of Life Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaTrinity Western UniversityProvidence Health CareUniversity of ManitobaCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesWestern UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsycINFOMEDLINEItem response theoryTest (biology)Random effects modelPsychologyPsychometricsApplied psychologyMeta-analysisMedicineComputer scienceClinical psychologyPolitical science

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)0.616
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.853
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6160.853
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.015
Bibliometrics0.0430.041
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0260.018
Open science0.0120.014
Research integrity0.0100.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.915
GPT teacher head0.805
Teacher spread0.111 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainReporting
GenreReview

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

Citations88
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueQuality of Life ResearchSame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207