MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200425828 · doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.12.021

A survey of retractions in the cardiovascular literature

2021· review· en· W4200425828 on OpenAlexaff
Katia Audisio, N. Bryce Robinson, Giovanni Soletti, Gianmarco Cancelli, Arnaldo Dimagli, Cristiano Spadaccio, Roberto Perezgrovas‐Olaria, David Chadow, Mohamed Rahouma, Michelle Demetres, Derrick Y. Tam, Umberto Benedetto, Leonard N. Girardi, Paul Kurlansky, Stephen E. Fremes, Mario Gaudino

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cardiology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeScientific misconductMisconductInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathologyLaw

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
gemmaMetaresearchResearch integrityBibliometrics
Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptMetaresearchResearch integrity
Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0230.021
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.324 · 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.

MetaresearchResearch integrityBibliometrics

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

Study designObservational
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

Citations37
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of CardiologySame topicAcademic integrity and plagiarismCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207