MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401892856 · doi:10.1002/ase.2499

Journal recommended guidelines for survey‐based research

2024· review· en· W4401892856 on OpenAlexaff
Adam B. Wilson, Boon‐Huat Bay, Jessica N. Byram, Melissa A. Carroll, Gabrielle M. Finn, Niels Hammer, Sabine Hildebrandt, Claudia Krebs, Jonathan J. Wisco, Jason M. Organ

Bibliographic record

VenueAnatomical Sciences Education · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationMEDLINEPsychologyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Survey-based research is vital in education and social sciences, offering insights into human behaviors and perceptions. The prevalence of such studies in medical education has risen by 33% over the past decade. Despite this growth, the utility of survey findings depends on the study design quality and measure validity. Many manuscripts are rejected due to poor planning and lack of validity evidence. These guidelines aim to improve the rigor and reporting of survey-based research, ensuring credibility and reproducibility. They apply to various survey tools and evaluations, setting a standard for manuscript quality and informing the review process for Anatomical Science Education.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.830
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnatomical Sciences EducationSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207