MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3007530048 · doi:10.23970/ahrqepcwhitepaper2

Understanding Health Systems' Use of and Need for Evidence To Inform Decisionmaking

2017· report· en· W3007530048 on OpenAlexfundno aff
C Michael White, Gillian Sanders Schmidler, Mary Butler, Zhen Wang, Karen A. Robinson, Matthew D. Mitchell, Nancy D Berkman, Jillian T. Henderson, Celia Fiordalisi, Lisa Hartling, Sydne J Newberry, Jeanne‐Marie Guise, Amanda E. Borsky, David W. Niebuhr, Diana T. Pham, Aysegul Gozu, Suchitra Iyer, Lionel L. Bañez

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJohns Hopkins UniversityUniversity of ConnecticutUniversity of PennsylvaniaUniversity of AlbertaBrown UniversityKaiser PermanenteAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsData scienceManagement scienceComputer sciencePsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structured Abstract Background According to the Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, in order for health care systems to improve health quality, outcomes, cost, and equity there needs to be a process for transmitting new knowledge into everyday care. Systematic reviews are one potential source of knowledge.

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)0.156
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.527
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.827

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1560.527
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.938
GPT teacher head0.581
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designQualitative
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→