MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884703756 · doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2018.06.005

Systematische Übersetzung und Cross-Validierung definierter Implementierungsoutcomes der Gesundheitsversorgung

2018· article· de· W2884703756 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueZeitschrift für Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen · 2018
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFidelityConstruct (python library)GermanPsychological interventionMeasure (data warehouse)Computer sciencePsychologyLinguisticsData miningPhilosophyPsychiatry

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.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.034

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 head0.422
GPT teacher head0.661
Teacher spread0.239 · 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