MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022730195 · doi:10.2515/therapie/2009041

Guidelines for Submitting Adverse Event Reports for Publication

2009· article· en· W3022730195 on OpenAlexaff
William Kelly, Félix Arellano, Joanne Barnes, Ulf Bergman, Ralph Edwards, Agustin Ignacio Fernández, Stephen B. Freedman, David Goldsmith, Kui Huang, Judith K. Jones, Rachel McLeay, Nicholas Moore, Rosie Stather, Thierry Trenque, William G. Troutman, Eugène van Puijenbroek, Frank G. Williams, Robert P. Wise

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvent (particle physics)Data scienceMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.245
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.562
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2450.562
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.009
Bibliometrics0.0240.015
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0190.007
Open science0.0100.007
Research integrity0.0340.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0740.086

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 head0.591
GPT teacher head0.620
Teacher spread0.030 · 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
DomainReporting
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

Citations70
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueTherapiesSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207