MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220833209 · doi:10.1002/cl2.1226

Getting evidence into use: The experience of the Campbell Collaboration

2022· editorial· en· W4220833209 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Howard White

Bibliographic record

VenueCampbell Systematic Reviews · 2022
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummitPublic relationsPolitical sciencePsychological interventionNothingWork (physics)Set (abstract data type)MedicineEngineeringComputer scienceNursingGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When I became CEO of the Campbell Collaboration in late 2015, I had two goals: to increase production of Campbell reviews, and to increase their use by decision-makers.Here I talk about the second of these, since, as I said at our first What Works Global Summit in London in 2016: 'Research, what is it good for?Absolutely nothing… unless it is used by policy makers and practitioners'.

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)0.520
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.727
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5200.727
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0120.015
Science and technology studies0.0320.050
Scholarly communication0.0580.049
Open science0.0120.059
Research integrity0.0430.067
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.307 · 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
DomainEvaluation
GenreEditorial

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCampbell Systematic ReviewsSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207