Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter uses the frameworks of evidence-based medicine and implementation science to identify gaps in existing knowledge and practice for most of the clinical questions faced by acute care providers. Systematic reviews are a form of clinical research. In performing a systematic review, it is necessary to search the literature for relevant publications, to screen the identified publications and assess them for suitability, to perform a qualitative analysis of the suitable publications, and, finally, to perform a quantitative synthesis of the analyses identified. Engaging in structured critical appraisal is not only of value in determining if a specific piece of primary literature can inform clinical practice but it can also point to opportunities to repeat studies with the problematic component corrected. Knowledge Translation (KT) research and interventions are necessary to bridge the gap between the modification of best practices, and those practices being adopted as new standards of patient care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.009 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".