MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Examining the Influence of Component Outcomes on the Composite at the Design Stage

2018· article· en· W2807133526 on OpenAlexaff
Paul M. Brown, Justin A. Ezekowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineComponent (thermodynamics)Heart failureClinical trialInternal medicineQuality of life (healthcare)Composite numberAmbulatoryGerontologyComputer scienceNursing

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)0.543
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.731
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5430.731
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.021
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0070.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.653
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.140 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207