MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2884377688 · doi:10.1186/s13063-018-2735-z

CONSORT-SPI 2018 Explanation and Elaboration: guidance for reporting social and psychological intervention trials

2018· review· en· W2884377688 on OpenAlexafffund
Sean Grant, Evan Mayo‐Wilson, Paul Montgomery, Geraldine Macdonald, Susan Michie, Sally Hopewell, David Moher

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
FundersMedical Research CouncilEconomic and Social Research CouncilUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of BristolUniversity of California, Los AngelesUniversity of GlasgowUniversity of OxfordNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCancer Research UKQueen Mary University of LondonDrexel UniversityOttawa Hospital Research InstituteJohns Hopkins UniversityMenzies Centre for Australian Studies, King's College London, University of LondonYork UniversityVanderbilt UniversityUniversity College LondonKaiser PermanenteMichigan State UniversityNorthwestern University
KeywordsConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsChecklistPsychological interventionMedicinePsychologyMedical educationApplied psychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.393
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.699
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3930.699
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.019
Bibliometrics0.0320.022
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0100.011
Research integrity0.0190.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0930.062

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 head0.985
GPT teacher head0.750
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainReporting
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

Citations373
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrials→Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews→French-language works237,207→