MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886087429 · doi:10.31274/safepork-180809-803

Standards for reporting clinical trials: The CONSORT statement for clinical trials in livestock. Application to food safety

2009· article· en· W2886087429 on OpenAlexaff
Annette M. O’Connor, Jan M. Sargeant, Ian A. Gardner, James S. Dickson, Mary E. Torrence

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on the Epidemiology and Control of Biological, Chemical and Physical Hazards in Pigs and Pork · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsClinical trialStatement (logic)LivestockFood safetyComputer scienceMedicinePolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently reviews of interventions studies in pre-harvest food safety have identified issues with lack of reporting of key methodological quality features and items necessary for interpretation and replication of trial findings. In human medicine, similar issues with the reporting of clinical trials were identified 10-15 years ago. This led to the publication of the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, which consists of a 22-item checklist of items that should be reported when publishing a clinical trial, a flow diagram to describe participant movement at all stages of a trial, and an explanation and elaboration document.

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)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.695
GPT teacher head0.610
Teacher spread0.086 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on the Epidemiology and Control of Biological, Chemical and Physical Hazards in Pigs and PorkSame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207