MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3141245223 · doi:10.1590/s1980-657420210000227

How to prepare a systematic review and meta-analysis: the methodological approach

2021· review· pt· W3141245223 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco

Bibliographic record

VenueMotriz Revista de Educação Física · 2021
Typereview
Languagept
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsCochrane
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystematic reviewMeta-analysisManagement scienceComputer scienceData sciencePsychologyEngineering ethicsMEDLINEMedicineEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: This article aimed to provide to the authors a summary of the methodological approach to prepare a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: The instructions were established to support authors in preparing systematic reviews and meta-analyses, according to the required recommendations. Conclusion: The researchers should keep in mind that conduct a systematic review involves rigorous methodological criteria to identify and synthesize all relevant studies on a given topic defined a priori.

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)0.404
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.645
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4040.645
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.018
Bibliometrics0.0210.014
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0170.015
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0120.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.010

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 head0.864
GPT teacher head0.570
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
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMotriz Revista de Educação FísicaSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207