MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3024051359 · doi:10.1136/ebn.10.1.6

Of studies, syntheses, synopses, summaries, and systems: the “5S” evolution of information services for evidence-based healthcare decisions

2007· article· en· W3024051359 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Haynes

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careComputer scienceData scienceHealthcare systemBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

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)0.325
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.633
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3250.633
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.006
Bibliometrics0.0490.046
Science and technology studies0.0050.027
Scholarly communication0.0360.043
Open science0.0070.017
Research integrity0.0090.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations243
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based Nursing→Same topicElectronic Health Records Systems→French-language works237,207→