MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6906701067 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/nm9tr

Understanding participant characteristics of who is accessing exercise oncology trials: A scoping review of Canadian trials over the last 20 years.

2024· other· en· W6906701067 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialIntervention (counseling)Alternative medicineMEDLINECancerSample (material)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The overall objective of this review is to explore the participant characteristics (personal and cancer related) of exercise oncology intervention trials in Canada. This is important because although numerous trials have emerged in this area over the last few years, there is concern that these trials are not reaching a diverse sample of individuals. No review of the literature exists examining this hypothesis. This information is needed in order to devise strategies to maximize recruitment of underserved populations in exercise oncology trials.

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)0.121
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.386
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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1210.386
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0080.022
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.437
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.061 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207