MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904237019 · doi:10.1007/s11606-018-4738-6

Practical Guidance for Involving Stakeholders in Health Research

2018· review· en· W2904237019 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas W. Concannon, Sean Grant, Vivian Welch, Jennifer Petkovic, Joseph V. Selby, Sally Crowe, Anneliese Synnot, Regina Greer-Smith, Evan Mayo‐Wilson, Ellen Tambor, Peter Tugwell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of General Internal Medicine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalBruyèreUniversity of OttawaCentre for Global Health Research
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsStakeholderStakeholder engagementNormativeStakeholder analysisWork (physics)MedicinePublic relationsKnowledge managementComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineering

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablemedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.317
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.432
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3170.432
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0120.008
Science and technology studies0.0080.013
Scholarly communication0.0170.029
Open science0.0100.019
Research integrity0.0370.032
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.012

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 head0.913
GPT teacher head0.689
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview · Methods

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

Citations232
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of General Internal MedicineSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207