MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806222726 · doi:10.1503/cjs.013117

Users’ guide to the surgical literature: how to assess a qualitative study

2018· article· en· W2806222726 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lucas Gallo, Jessica Murphy, Luis H. Braga, Forough Farrokhyar, Achilleas Thoma

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQualitative researchCritical appraisalInterpretation (philosophy)Alternative medicinePathologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: Qualitative research contributes to the medical literature through the observation, description and interpretation of theories about social interactions and individual experiences as they occur in their natural setting. This type of research has the potential to enhance the understanding of surgeons' and patients' preferences, attitudes and beliefs, as well as assess how these may change with time. To date, there is no widely accepted standard for the methodological assessment of qualitative research. Despite ongoing debate, this article seeks to familiarize surgeons with the basic techniques for the critical appraisal of qualitative studies in the surgical literature.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.293
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207