Methods for scoping review: Protocol and methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute framework (1) and responds to PRISMA-ScR checklist (2). Methods were registered on HAL on the 24rth of July 2021. The review included the following six key phases: 1) identifying the research question, 2) identifying relevant studies, 3) study selection, 4) charting the data, 5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. 2.2 Research question This scoping review was guided by the following question: What is the spectrum of myositis associated with polyarthritis? 2.3 Screening for relevant studies : eligibility criteria Articles were included if they considered the association of polyarthritis and IIM. For practical reason, articles in other languages than English or French were excluded. Duplicates
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.179 | 0.190 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.175 | 0.044 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".