MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Seven principles for integrating health equity considerations in the practice guideline enterprise

2025· article· en· W4408880194 on OpenAlexafffund
Omar Dewidar, Andrea Darzi, Shahab Sayfi, Jordi Pardo Pardo, Vivian Welch, Grace C. Wright, Elie A. Akl, Joanne Khabsa, Jennifer S Lin, Rebecca L. Morgan, Kevin Pottie, Janice Tufte, Jana Khawandi, Xiaoqin Wang, Oyekola Oloyede, Tamara Lotfi, Xiaomei Yao, Ana Carolina Pereira Nunes Pinto, Yuan Chi, Reem A. Mustafa, Holger J. Schünemann, Peter Tugwell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaWestern UniversityCentre for Global Health ResearchImpactMcMaster UniversityUniversity of OttawaCochraneBruyère
FundersPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsGuidelineEquity (law)BusinessMedicineManagement scienceActuarial sciencePolitical scienceEconomics

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)0.123
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.118
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1230.118
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.058
Scholarly communication0.0280.018
Open science0.0060.013
Research integrity0.0250.032
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.901
GPT teacher head0.822
Teacher spread0.079 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology→Same topicHealth Policy Implementation Science→French-language works237,207→