MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6894276083 · doi:10.5683/sp2/76lasw

Compendiums for Measures of Movement and Mobility used in Clinical Practice and Research: A Scoping Review

2019· dataset· en· W6894276083 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovement (music)Measure (data warehouse)Clinical PracticeSet (abstract data type)International Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthRaw data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first objective of the scoping review is to identify all the tools designed to measure movement or mobility in adults. The second objective is to compare the tools to the conceptual definitions of movement and mobility by mapping them to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). This dataset contains a set of 28 Compendiums and a guide to the tools, and raw data files from the tables in the Compendiums.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.136
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.136
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0310.048
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0860.026

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 head0.435
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.101 · 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 designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorealis→French-language works237,207→