MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402418527 · doi:10.1002/cl2.1433

Searching for studies: A guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews

2024· article· en· W4402418527 on OpenAlexaff
H. Robson MacDonald, Cozette Comer, Margaret Foster, Patrick Labelle, Scott Marsalis, Kate Nyhan, Zahra Premji, Morwenna Rogers, Ryan Splenda, Claire Stansfield, Sarah Young

Bibliographic record

VenueCampbell Systematic Reviews · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaCanadian Library AssociationUniversity of OttawaLibrary and Archives CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Plan (archaeology)Information retrievalComputer scienceData scienceManagement scienceEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This guide outlines general issues in searching for studies; describes the main sources of potential studies; and discusses how to plan the search process, design, and carry out search strategies, manage references found during the search process and document and report the search process.

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)0.170
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.412
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1700.412
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.012
Bibliometrics0.0480.069
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0120.014
Open science0.0090.011
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0850.036

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 head0.793
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.197 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations85
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCampbell Systematic ReviewsSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207