MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303616854 · doi:10.1002/cl2.1281

PROTOCOL: Effects of guaranteed basic income interventions on poverty‐related outcomes in high‐income countries: A systematic review

2022· review· en· W4303616854 on OpenAlexaff
Anita Rizvi, Vivian Welch, Marcia Gibson, Patrick Labelle, Christina Pollard, George A. Wells, Elizabeth Kristjansson

Bibliographic record

VenueCampbell Systematic Reviews · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsCanadian Library AssociationBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsPovertyProtocol (science)Psychological interventionPublic economicsSystematic reviewEconomicsActuarial sciencePsychologyMedicineMEDLINEEconomic growthPolitical scienceAlternative medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: to appraise and synthesize the available quantitative evidence on GBI interventions in high-income countries, for the purpose of comparing the relative effectiveness of specific forms of GBI for alleviating poverty.

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)0.087
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.171
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0870.171
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.016
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0100.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1590.020

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.301 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCampbell Systematic ReviewsSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207