MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Few evaluative studies exist examining rapid review methodology across stages of conduct: a systematic scoping review

2020· article· en· W3037616222 on OpenAlexafffund
Candyce Hamel, Alan Michaud, Micere Thuku, Lisa Affengruber, Becky Skidmore, Barbara Nußbaumer-Streit, Adrienne Stevens, Chantelle Garritty

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGrey literatureSystematic reviewCritical appraisalContext (archaeology)Protocol (science)MEDLINEMedicinePsychologyComputer scienceManagement scienceApplied psychologyAlternative medicinePathologyEngineering

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)0.486
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.776
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4860.776
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.013
Bibliometrics0.0140.016
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0140.013
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.994
GPT teacher head0.873
Teacher spread0.120 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations41
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical EpidemiologySame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207