MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232687588 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-278523/v1

Simple compared to covariate-constrained randomization methods in balancing baseline characteristics: a case study of randomly allocating 72 hemodialysis centers in a cluster trial

2021· preprint· en· W4232687588 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmed A. Al‐Jaishi, Stephanie N. Dixon, Eric McArthur, P.J. Devereaux, Lehana Thabane, Amit X. Garg

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsImpactLawson Health Research InstituteMcMaster University
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareKidney Foundation of CanadaCancer Care OntarioDialysis ClinicsMcMaster UniversityCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchLawson Health Research InstituteHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsCovariateBaseline (sea)RandomizationSimple (philosophy)Cluster (spacecraft)Cluster randomised controlled trialHemodialysisStatisticsRandomized controlled trialComputer scienceMedicineMathematicsSurgeryPolitical 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)0.121
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.259
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1210.259
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.509
GPT teacher head0.620
Teacher spread0.112 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207