MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Methodological guidance for incorporating equity when informing rapid-policy and guideline development

2022· article· en· W4286256688 on OpenAlexaff
Omar Dewidar, Brenda Allen Kawala, Alba Antequera, Andrea C. Tricco, David Tovey, Sharon E. Straus, R. E. Glover, Janice Tufte, Olivia Magwood, Maureen Smith, Cheow Peng Ooi, Anna Dion, Mireille Goetghebeur, Ludovic Revéiz, Stefano Négrini, Peter Tugwell, Jennifer Petkovic, Vivian Welch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsInstitut National d'Excellence en Santé et en Services SociauxHealth CanadaOttawa HospitalQueen's UniversityUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalCochraneBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsEquity (law)Systematic reviewGuidelineMedicineHealth equityMEDLINEPublic healthPublic relationsPolitical scienceNursing

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)0.708
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.928
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7080.928
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.017
Bibliometrics0.0210.014
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0260.019
Open science0.0100.016
Research integrity0.0190.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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 head0.979
GPT teacher head0.749
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations39
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical EpidemiologySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207