MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

UPDATE: SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META‐ANALYSES

2008· article· en· W4245801594 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
The Editors

Bibliographic record

VenueANZ Journal of Surgery · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studySystematic reviewMEDLINEMedical literatureMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialFamily medicineSurgeryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Systematic reviews identify relevant studies, evaluate their quality, sum up the results using formal methods and draw conclusions based on the evidence.Meta-analysis is the term used when it is reasonable to combine the findings of a systematic review and perform a statistical analysis.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.167
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.167
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.017
Bibliometrics0.0390.023
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.012

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 head0.948
GPT teacher head0.578
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueANZ Journal of Surgery→Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews→French-language works237,207→