MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6902251959 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.22618676

Additional file 1 of Evaluation of the use of GRADE in dentistry systematic reviews and its impact on conclusions: a protocol for a methodological study

2023· article· en· W6902251959 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)ChecklistSystematic reviewMEDLINEEvidence-based dentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additional file 1. PRISMA-P Checklist. PRISMA-P checklist outlining which components were adhered to in the formation of this protocol and where in the manuscript they can be found.

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
gemmaInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
gptInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.255
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.255
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8060.067

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 head0.978
GPT teacher head0.718
Teacher spread0.260 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews→CategoryInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)→French-language works237,207→