MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197579792 · doi:10.1007/s00404-021-06228-y

Quality appraisal of systematic reviews on methods of labour induction: a systematic review

2021· review· en· W3197579792 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan Chow, Allen Li, Nicole Wu, Morgan Martin, Jocelyn M. Wessels, Lauren Foster

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Gynecology and Obstetrics · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSystematic reviewMedicineCritical appraisalData extractionCochrane LibraryMEDLINEQuality (philosophy)Quality assessmentGrey literatureMeta-analysisAlternative medicinePathology

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)0.135
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.373
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1350.373
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0340.029
Bibliometrics0.0220.018
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.754
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.143 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Gynecology and ObstetricsSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207