MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011246493 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30667-x

Evidence informing the UK's COVID-19 public health response must be transparent

2020· letter· en· W3011246493 on OpenAlexaff
Nisreen A Alwan, Raj Bhopal, Rochelle A. Burgess, Tim Colburn, Luís E. Cuevas, George Davey Smith, Matthias Egger, Sandra Eldridge, V. Gallo, Mark S. Gilthorpe, Trisha Greenhalgh, Chris Griffiths, Paul Hunter, Shabbar Jaffar, Ruth Jepson, Nicola Low, Adrian R. Martineau, David McCoy, Miriam Orcutt, Bharat Pankhania, Hynek Pikhart, Allyson M Pollock, Gabriel Scally, James Smith, Devi Sridhar, Stephanie Taylor, Peter W. G. Tennant, Yrene Themistocleous, Anne L. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Challenges
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchWellcome Trust
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Public healthBetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsPandemicVirologyMEDLINEMedicineBusinessPolitical scienceNursingOutbreakLawInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The UK Government asserts that its response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is based on evidence and expert modelling. However, different scientists can reach different conclusions based on the same evidence, and small differences in assumptions can lead to large differences in model predictions.

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)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.328
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.328
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.025
Scholarly communication0.0290.023
Open science0.0090.014
Research integrity0.2740.146
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.018

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 head0.702
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainReproducibility
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

Citations63
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicHealthcare Systems and ChallengesFrench-language works237,207