MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4241687713 · doi:10.2196/preprints.20211

Correction: Using Natural Language Processing to Examine the Uptake, Content, and Readability of Media Coverage of a Pan-Canadian Drug Safety Research Project: Cross-Sectional Observational Study (Preprint)

2020· preprint· en· W4241687713 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hossein Mohammadhassanzadeh, Ingrid Sketris, Robyn Traynor, Susan Alexander, Brandace Winquist, Samuel A. Stewart

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReadabilityObservational studyPreprintCross-sectional studyComputer scienceAdvertisingMedicineWorld Wide WebBusiness

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.386
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.386
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0100.005
Research integrity0.0090.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1570.052

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 head0.556
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.037 · 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 designObservational
DomainReporting
GenreEmpirical

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 topicSocial Media in Health Education→French-language works237,207→