MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2948025469 · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000171

Using evidence synthesis and clinical practice guidelines in everyday decision-making process

2019· editorial· en· W2948025469 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Miloslav Klugar, Jitka Klugarová

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcellenceHealth careCzechEvidence-based practiceBest practiceProcess (computing)Evidence-based medicineMedical educationPolitical sciencePsychologyPublic relationsMedicineMEDLINELawAlternative medicineComputer sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.640
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.758
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6400.758
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.010
Bibliometrics0.0320.025
Science and technology studies0.0050.020
Scholarly communication0.0360.027
Open science0.0110.021
Research integrity0.0210.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.006

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 head0.564
GPT teacher head0.668
Teacher spread0.105 · 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
DomainMethods
GenreEditorial

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare→Same topicClinical practice guidelines implementation→French-language works237,207→