MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093403613 · doi:10.1007/s40271-020-00459-y

Adapting two American Decision Aids for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury to the Canadian Context Using the Nominal Group Technique

2020· article· en· W3093403613 on OpenAlexafffundabout
El Kebir Ghandour, Lania Lelaidier Hould, Félix-Antoine Fortier, Véronique Gélinas, Edward R. Melnick, Erik P. Hess, Eddy Lang, Jocelyn Gravel, Jeffrey J. Perry, Natalie Le Sage, Catherine Truchon, Annie LeBlanc, Alexander Sasha Dubrovsky, Marie‐Pierre Gagnon, Marie‐Christine Ouellet, Isabelle Gagnon, Suzanne McKenna, France Légaré, Louise Sauvé, Tom H van de Belt, Éric Kavanagh, Laurence R. Paquette, Anne-Catherine Verrette, Patrick Plante, Richard J. Riopelle, Patrick Archambault

Bibliographic record

VenuePatient · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsUniversité TÉLUQOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversité LavalInstitut National d'Excellence en Santé et en Services SociauxUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityUniversity of CalgaryCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesCentre Intégré de Santé et Services Sociaux de Chaudière-Appalache
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsThematic analysisNominal group techniqueContext (archaeology)Decision aidsPopulationMedicineEmergency departmentPsychologyMedical educationQualitative researchApplied psychologyArtificial intelligencePsychiatryComputer sciencePathologyAlternative medicineSociology

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePatientSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207