MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213383173 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-16959/v3

A methodological review protocol of the use of Bayesian factor analysis in primary care

2020· review· en· W4213383173 on OpenAlexafffund
Hao Zhang, Tibor Schuster

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth Education and Validation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsProtocol (science)Primary careFactor (programming language)Bayesian probabilityComputer sciencePrimary (astronomy)StatisticsMedicineMathematicsArtificial intelligenceAlternative medicineFamily medicinePhysicsProgramming language

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
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewmedium
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)0.331
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.427
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3310.427
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.019
Bibliometrics0.0160.013
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0110.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0740.016

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 head0.841
GPT teacher head0.696
Teacher spread0.145 · 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 designNot applicable · Systematic review
DomainMethods
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicHealth Education and ValidationCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207