MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221014169 · doi:10.1057/s41271-022-00343-z

The case for using mixed methods for designing, implementing, and disseminating evidence-based interventions for public health practice

2022· review· en· W4221014169 on OpenAlexaff
Meredith Y. Smith, Sandy-Asari Hogan, Susan M. Jack, Robin Taylor Wilson, Mark Oremus

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Health Policy · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthPsychological interventionPublic health lawHealth policyInternational healthPublic relationsHealth services researchQualitative researchPolitical scienceMedicineSociologyNursingSocial science

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)0.638
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.741
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.6380.741
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.015
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0050.014
Scholarly communication0.0300.037
Open science0.0130.011
Research integrity0.0190.034
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.947
GPT teacher head0.817
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
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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public Health PolicySame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207