MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Additional file 3 of Screening for hypertension in adults: protocol for evidence reviews to inform a Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline update

2024· article· en· W6902151088 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of OttawaMcGill UniversityPublic Health Agency of CanadaKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's UniversityDalhousie UniversityWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoMemorial University of NewfoundlandChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask forceProtocol (science)GuidelineHealth carePreventive careSystematic reviewEvidence-based practiceTask (project management)Evidence-based medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additional file 3. AMSTAR 2 ratings for USPSTF 2021 systematic review.

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
gptInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Systematic reviewlow
opusInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models splitAgreement 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5150.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 3 models reading the full record.

Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Systematic review
Domainnot available
GenreOther · Dataset

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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionCategoryInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)French-language works237,207