MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362554355 · doi:10.1186/s12877-023-03888-0

Correction: The impact of assistive devices on community-dwelling older adults and their informal caregivers: a systematic review

2023· review· en· W4362554355 on OpenAlexaff
Keshini Madara Marasinghe, Ashok Chaurasia, Maisha Adil, Qian Yue Liu, Teeyaa Nur, Mark Oremus

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia HospitalUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationGerontologyAssistive devicePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

detected errors in the reporting of the results and quality assessment.The last sentence of "Research question 2: assistive device use and informal caregiving hours" should read as: "In Research Question 2, both studies found a positive association between AD use and reduction in informal

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.225
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.225
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.007
Bibliometrics0.0110.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.008

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.313 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBMC GeriatricsSame topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207