Clinical music study quality assessment scale (Musiquas) 1st edition
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Publications in scientific journals have extensively used assessment scales to address methodological quality. So far there is no scale which assesses the quality of studies in the vast amount of music related sciences.The clinical music study quality assessment scale (Musiquas) addresses this issue providing a 10-point rating scale. Studies are assessed on four general categories: Selection, Control criteria, Exposure and Outcome.Musiquas is based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of studies in meta-analyses and attuned by the authors to fit the demand of quality assessment in the wide array of clinical music studies.A three round Delphi procedure as well as open online commentaries contributed to the creation of the assessment scale presented here.Conclusively, this scale will contribute to higher quality methodologies in systematic reviews and meta analyses in music sciences and intervention research.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it