MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409111564 · doi:10.1002/cl2.70031

PROTOCOL: Government‐Led Communication Campaigns for Reducing Violent Extremism − A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4409111564 on OpenAlexaff
Ghayda Hassan, Sébastien Brouillette‐Alarie, Kurt Braddock, Sarah Carthy, Wynnpaul Varela, Pablo Madriaza, Paul Gill

Bibliographic record

VenueCampbell Systematic Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersTemple UniversityGeorge Mason University
KeywordsProtocol (science)Government (linguistics)Systematic reviewViolent extremismComputer securityCriminologyPsychologyPolitical sciencePublic relationsComputer scienceMedicineMEDLINELawAlternative medicineTerrorism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The main objective of this project is to gather, critically appraise, and synthesize evidence about the effectiveness of government-led communication campaigns geared toward preventing violent extremism.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCampbell Systematic ReviewsSame topicTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceFrench-language works237,207