MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6889071373 · doi:10.25384/sage.19561100

sj-docx-1-msj-10.1177_13524585221085733 – Supplemental material for Recommendations for the use of propensity score methods in multiple sclerosis research

2022· article· en· W6889071373 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaProvidence Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropensity score matchingMultiple sclerosisMEDLINEFingolimodMallinckrodt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-msj-10.1177_13524585221085733 for Recommendations for the use of propensity score methods in multiple sclerosis research by Gabrielle Simoneau, Fabio Pellegrini, Thomas PA Debray, Julie Rouette, Johanna Muñoz, Robert W. Platt, John Petkau, Justin Bohn, Changyu Shen, Carl de Moor and Mohammad Ehsanul Karim in Multiple Sclerosis Journal

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.142
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.142
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.9290.793

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 head0.882
GPT teacher head0.584
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataSame topicAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesFrench-language works237,207