MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401542684 · doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-079694

Reporting on data sharing: executive position of the EQUATOR Network

2024· article· en· W4401542684 on OpenAlexaff
David Moher, Gary S. Collins, Tammy Hoffmann, Paul Glasziou, Philippe Ravaud, Zhaoxiang Bian

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistData sharingTransparency (behavior)Computer scienceData qualityFocus (optics)Quality (philosophy)Data managementData scienceProcess managementKnowledge managementMedicineData miningBusinessPsychologyComputer securityOperations managementAlternative medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of health Research) Network supports the practice of data sharing, and the reporting of data management and sharing plans, in all reports of biomedical research. Both practices should be included as checklist items when developing new or updating reporting guidelines. More focus should be given to structuring and standardising data management and sharing plans to help provide a similar impact as reporting guidelines.

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)0.591
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.745
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5910.745
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0190.027
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0330.021
Open science0.0110.023
Research integrity0.0170.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.073

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 head0.875
GPT teacher head0.597
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainReporting
GenreCommentary

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

Citations19
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207