MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981771803 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.73257

Is it time to develop AGREE III?

2019· letter· en· W2981771803 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joseph Watine

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Computer scienceHealth care deliveryQuality (philosophy)Data scienceProcess managementHealth careBusinessPolitical scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As recently pointed out by Djulbegovic and colleagues,[1][1],[2][2] if we are to improve delivery of health care, there must be an awareness that quality-improvement initiatives that fail to process underlying evidence rigorously and adapt this evidence to the local environment may prove wasteful

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)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.211
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.211
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0050.010
Research integrity0.0480.076
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.008

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.305 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207