MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200935939 · doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-1566-9_6

Systematic Versus Rapid Versus Scoping Reviews

2021· article· en· W3200935939 on OpenAlexaff
Zachary Bouck, Sharon E. Straus, Andrea C. Tricco

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthQueen's UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystematic reviewStrengths and weaknessesManagement scienceEngineering ethicsKnowledge managementPsychologyData scienceComputer scienceEngineeringPolitical scienceMEDLINESocial psychology

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)0.287
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.551
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2870.551
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.011
Bibliometrics0.0170.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0120.013
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.777
GPT teacher head0.647
Teacher spread0.130 · 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

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207