MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971663003 · doi:10.23970/ahrqepcwhitepaper3

A Framework for Conceptualizing Evidence Needs of Health Systems

2017· report· en· W2971663003 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Karen M Schoelles, Craig A. Umscheid, Jennifer S Lin, Thomas W. Concannon, Andrea C. Skelly, Meera Viswanathan, Christine Chang, Elizabeth Kato, Eric B Bass, Julia Lavenberg, Kim Peterson, Amanda S. Newton, Evan Meyers, Stacey Springs, Vivian Christensen, Nicole Floyd, Celia Fiordalisi, Jeanne‐Marie Guise, M. Hassan Murad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Pennsylvania Health SystemUniversity of PennsylvaniaUniversity of AlbertaBrown UniversityKaiser PermanenteJohns Hopkins UniversityAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsComputer scienceData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structured Abstract Objectives. To develop a framework for understanding the evidence needs of health systems to inform the AHRQ EPC Program future efforts. Data sources. Three data sources were used: (a) peer-reviewed literature from a systematic search of English-language publications in MEDLINE from January 2007–April 2017, (b) original data from four programs serving health system requests for evidence syntheses, and (c) input during a face-to-face meeting at AHRQ in June 2017 from health system stakeholders and EPC investigators.

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)0.130
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.159
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1300.159
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0320.016
Science and technology studies0.0060.035
Scholarly communication0.0220.036
Open science0.0080.015
Research integrity0.0110.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.469
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.029 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207