MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4286816350 · doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.27608

A contrast of meta and metafor packages for meta-analyses in R

2019· preprint· en· W4286816350 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher J. Lortie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContrast (vision)Meta-analysisMathematicsPsychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is extensive support and choice in R to support meta-analyses. Two common packages in the natural sciences include meta and metafor. Here, a brief contrast of the strengths of each is described for the synthesis scientist. Meta is a direct, intuitive choice for rapid implementation of general meta-analytical statistics. Metafor is a comprehensive package for analyses if the fit models are more complex. Both packages provide estimates of heterogeneity, excellent visualization tools, and functions to explore publication bias. Preference and critical outcomes can facilitate choice between these two specific options. Nonetheless, metafor has a steeper learning curve but greater rewards.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.224
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.224
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1740.069

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 head0.958
GPT teacher head0.640
Teacher spread0.318 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews→French-language works237,207→