MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3030134420 · doi:10.1002/cl2.1087

PROTOCOL: When and how to replicate systematic reviews

2020· article· en· W3030134420 on OpenAlexaff
Sathya Karunananthan, Lara Maxwell, Vivian Welch, Jennifer Petkovic, Jordi Pardo Pardo, Tamara Rader, Marc T. Avey, John Baptiste-Ngobi, Ricardo Batista, Janet Curran, Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu, Ian D. Graham, Jeremy Grimshaw, John P. A. Ioannidis, Zoe Jordan, Janet Jull, Anne Lyddiatt, David Moher, Mark Petticrew, Kevin Pottie, Gabriel Rada, Larissa Shamseer, Beverley Shea, Konstantinos C. Siontis, Naomi Tschirhart, Brigitte Vachon, George A. Wells, Howard White, Peter Tugwell

Bibliographic record

VenueCampbell Systematic Reviews · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalQueen's UniversityOttawa Public HealthCapital District Health AuthorityPublic Health Agency of CanadaBruyèreCochraneIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreOttawa HospitalCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in HealthUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReplicateProtocol (science)Systematic reviewSystematic errorComputer sciencePsychologyMEDLINEMedicineBiologyAlternative medicineStatisticsPathologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a protocol for a co-registered Cochrane and Campbell Review (Methodology). The objectives are as follows: To identify, describe and assess methods for: when to replicate a systematic review; how to replicate a systematic review.

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)0.272
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.544
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reproducibility · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2720.544
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.015
Bibliometrics0.0170.018
Science and technology studies0.0070.009
Scholarly communication0.0150.015
Open science0.0060.010
Research integrity0.0180.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2450.095

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 head0.819
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
DomainReproducibility
GenreProtocol

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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCampbell Systematic ReviewsSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207