MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6904900233 · doi:10.15124/crd42013004686

The effectiveness of manual therapy for thoracic spinal pain and musculoskeletal chest pain: a systematic review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration

2014· other· en· W6904900233 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueYork · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManual therapyProtocol (science)Systematic reviewPain managementThoracic spineSpinal injuryTreatment protocol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Systematic review protocol registration

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.136
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.136
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.020
Bibliometrics0.0150.014
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.004

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.325 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYorkFrench-language works237,207