MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894800212 · doi:10.1038/s41393-018-0194-8

Correction: Evidence-based scientific exercise guidelines for adults with spinal cord injury: an update and a new guideline

2018· erratum· en· W2894800212 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen A. Martin Ginis, Jan W. van der Scheer, Amy E. Latimer‐Cheung, Andy Barrow, Christopher Bourne, Peter Carruthers, Marco Bernardi, David S. Ditor, Sonja Gaudet, Sonja de Groot, Keith C. Hayes, Audrey L. Hicks, Christof A. Leicht, Jan Lexell, Steven Macaluso, Patricia J. Manns, Christopher B. McBride, Vanessa K. Noonan, Pierre Pomerleau, James H. Rimmer, Robert B. Shaw, Brett Smith, Karen Smith, John D. Steeves, Dot Tussler, Christopher R. West, Dalton L. Wolfe, Victoria L. Goosey‐Tolfrey

Bibliographic record

VenueSpinal Cord · 2018
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesParkwood InstitutePraxis Spinal Cord InstituteUniversity of AlbertaWestern UniversityUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusOntario Neurotrauma FoundationInterior HealthSpinal Cord Injury OntarioBrock UniversityMcMaster UniversitySpinal Cord Injury BCQueen's UniversityKelowna General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineSpinal cord injuryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyMEDLINEScientific evidenceEvidence-based medicineAlternative medicineSpinal cordPathologyPsychiatry

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.179
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.179
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0220.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.019

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSpinal CordSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207