MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399807257 · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4863539

Reported Use of Randomized Controlled Trial Registry Records and Published Study Protocols in Cochrane Systematic Reviews from 2015 to 2021: A Cross-Sectional Audit

2024· preprint· en· W4399807257 on OpenAlexaff
José F. Meneses-Echávez, Catherine Boden, Andrés F. Loaiza-Betancur, Adriana Angarita Fonseca, Julia Bidonde

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMedicineAuditSystematic reviewCross-sectional studyMEDLINEProtocol (science)Family medicineAlternative medicineInternal medicineAccountingBusinessPathologyPolitical science

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)0.478
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.771
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: Reporting
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4780.771
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.014
Bibliometrics0.0390.042
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.015
Open science0.0070.008
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.440
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.091 · 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 designObservational
DomainReporting
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

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