MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2960982348 · doi:10.1111/obr.12890

Critique of a scoping review of principles to guide interactions between population health researchers and the food industry

2019· review· en· W2960982348 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Vivica I. Kraak

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity Reviews · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth CanadaWorld Health OrganizationRobert Wood Johnson Foundation
KeywordsVirginia techCitationLibrary sciencePopulationWest virginiaGerontologyEngineeringMedicineHistoryComputer scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critique of a scoping review of principles to guide interactions between

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)0.536
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.732
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5360.732
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.011
Bibliometrics0.0290.029
Science and technology studies0.0080.025
Scholarly communication0.0280.016
Open science0.0140.013
Research integrity0.0330.044
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.420
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.099 · 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
DomainEvaluation
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObesity ReviewsSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207