MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285087628 · doi:10.1007/s40271-022-00587-7

Methods to Summarize Discrete-Choice Experiments in a Systematic Review: A Scoping Review

2022· review· en· W4285087628 on OpenAlexafffund
Daksh Choudhary, Megan Thomas, Kevin Pacheco‐Barrios, Yuan Zhang, Pablo Alonso‐Coello, Holger J. Schünemann, Glen Hazlewood

Bibliographic record

VenuePatient · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpactUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSystematic reviewManagement scienceData scienceComputer sciencePsychologyMEDLINEEngineeringPolitical 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)0.105
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.343
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1050.343
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.022
Bibliometrics0.0210.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.002

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 head0.321
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.083 · 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 designSystematic review
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 routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePatientSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207