MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414391465 · doi:10.1002/14651858.ed000175

Call to action: building a better future together, powered by evidence, guided by collective impact

2025· editorial· en· W4414391465 on OpenAlexaff
Karla Soares‐Weiser, Zoe Jordan, Laura dos Santos Boeira, Laurenz Mahlanza-Langer, Will Moy, Rhona Mijumbi, Ruth Foxlee, John N. Lavis

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2025
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAcademic Publishing and Open Access
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsSocietal impact of nanotechnologyRisk assessmentWork (physics)Key (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A better future starts with better evidenceImagine a world where every decision, whether in a government o ice, a community meeting, a hospital, or in response to a humanitarian crisis, is guided by timely and trusted evidence.A world where research is not locked behind paywalls or delayed by outdated systems but delivered in real time and adapted to local needs.The world in 2025 faces complex challenges, but also unprecedented opportunities to accelerate progress.The Sustainable Development Goals remind us how far we still need to go, while also highlighting the transformative power of working together in new ways [1][2].Guided by the principle of collective impact, and powered by new tools, global collaboration, and a pressing need for smarter, fairer decisions, we can reimagine how evidence drives progress.Across health, food systems, education, disaster preparedness, social protection, environmental protection and climate resilience, a stronger global evidence synthesis ecosystem can close the gap between knowledge and action.This is the future the Evidence Synthesis Infrastructure Collaborative (ESIC) is striving to build: timely, inclusive, and reliable evidence, created through robust, interoperable systems, which accelerates development goals and improves lives everywhere.This call to action invites governments, funders, evidence producers, intermediaries and citizens to shape that future together, replacing fragmentation with shared infrastructure, transforming how evidence is produced and used, and ensuring it reaches those who need it most -quickly and equitably.Let's act now.Let's choose a future where evidence drives collective impact.Evidence synthesis has expanded in scope and scale, but the infrastructure has not kept pace with contemporary needs.Call to action: building a better future together, powered by evidence, guided by collective impact (Editorial) 1

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)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.241
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.241
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0090.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.352 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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 venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicAcademic Publishing and Open AccessFrench-language works237,207