MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793499162 · doi:10.1007/s11121-018-0868-7

Innovation and Integrity in Intervention Research: Conceptual Issues, Methodology, and Knowledge Translation

2018· editorial· en· W2793499162 on OpenAlexafffund
Tina Malti, Andreas Beelmann, Gil G. Noam, Simon Sommer

Bibliographic record

VenuePrevention Science · 2018
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Engineering ethicsKnowledge translationTransparency (behavior)Health psychologyKnowledge managementQuality (philosophy)Translational researchKnowledge transferManagement scienceSociologyPublic healthComputer sciencePsychologyMedicineEngineeringEpistemology

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaResearch integrity
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
gptMetaresearchResearch integrity
Domain: Methods · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.102
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.339
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1020.339
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.005
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.023
Scholarly communication0.0220.013
Open science0.0100.004
Research integrity0.0370.048
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.953
GPT teacher head0.806
Teacher spread0.147 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Research integrityMetaresearch

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Theoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreEditorial

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePrevention ScienceSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceCategoryResearch integrityFrench-language works237,207