Textual evidence systematic reviews series paper 3: critical appraisal of evidence from narrative, opinion, and policy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
JBI has long held the view that an inclusive approach to the conceptualization of what counts as evidence is important to the evidence-based movement. JBI's approach for appraising textual evidence had encompassed all forms of text (narrative, opinion, and policy), with one general tool used to guide critical appraisal. The proliferation of textual evidence and increase in textual evidence reviews demonstrate the need to reconceptualize JBI's methodological approach to critically appraising textual evidence. The objective of this paper is to outline the updated methodological approach to systematic reviews of textual evidence, especially in relation to the development of 3 separate critical appraisal tools for narrative, expert opinion, and policy text. Using an adapted Delphi approach, the JBI Textual Evidence Methodology Group convened over several rounds of meetings and discussions with international experts to reach consensus on the reconceptualization of critical appraisal tools for textual evidence sources. Strategies to effectively interrogate the legitimacy and authenticity of sources were found to be dependent upon the type of textual evidence under review. Therefore, 3 separate critical appraisal tools for narrative, expert opinion, and policy text were developed. This paper provides an overview of the development of 3 separate critical appraisal tools, highlighting the complex nature of textual evidence data sources.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.517 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it