MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922279169 · doi:10.1017/brimp.2017.24

2017 ASSBI 40th Annual Conference Abstracts

2017· article· en· W2922279169 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Impairment · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContent (measure theory)PublishingComputer scienceAction (physics)World Wide WebLibrary sciencePolitical scienceMathematicsLawPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I n 2000 (and updated in 2008), the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) produced a framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions. This was followed by guidance on process evaluation. These MRC Frameworks have been influential in healthcare research. At this workshop, using examples from our research on the development and evaluation of cognitive rehabilitation, we will discuss how we can use these frameworks in our own work, consider how we can ensure the fidelity of the delivery of our interventions, and how best to report our interventions for replication in clinical practice or other research studies.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.517
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4830.311

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.323 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain ImpairmentSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207