MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128368481 · doi:10.1007/s10488-021-01110-0

Can We Develop Evidence-Based Guidelines Without Research Expertise?

2021· article· en· W3128368481 on OpenAlexafffund
Lyane Trépanier, Andrea Reyes, Constantina Stamoulos, Sylvie Beauchamp, Christian Dagenais, Gabrielle Ciquier, Martin Drapeau

Bibliographic record

VenueAdministration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEngineering ethicsPsychologyData scienceComputer scienceEngineering

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)0.476
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.809
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4760.809
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.010
Bibliometrics0.0130.010
Science and technology studies0.0100.019
Scholarly communication0.0380.041
Open science0.0260.020
Research integrity0.0570.062
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.006

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 head0.590
GPT teacher head0.677
Teacher spread0.087 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAdministration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services ResearchSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207