MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135280205 · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2021.02.018

“Rehabilitation Research Framework for Patients With COVID-19” Defined by Cochrane Rehabilitation and the World Health Organization Rehabilitation Programme

2021· article· en· W3135280205 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stefano Négrini, Jody-Anne Mills, Chiara Arienti, Carlotte Kiekens, Alarcos Cieza

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDipartimento di Medicina Sperimentale e Clinica, Università degli Studi di FirenzeKU LeuvenUniversity of SydneyUniversity of Ontario Institute of TechnologyFeinberg School of MedicineTrinity College DublinFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of SydneyNorthwestern UniversityWorld Health Organization
KeywordsRehabilitationContext (archaeology)PopulationMedicineNursingPhysical therapyEnvironmental healthGeography

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.304
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.304
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Metaresearch

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods · Commentary

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

Citations29
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19CategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207