MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6907599642 · doi:10.25384/sage.22029538

sj-pptx-1-cpa-10.1177_07067437231154993 - Supplemental material for A Meta-Research of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Mental Health: Comparing Pharmacological to Non-Pharmacological Interventions from 1955 to 2020

2023· other· en· W6907599642 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionMental healthField (mathematics)Intervention (counseling)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supplemental material, sj-pptx-1-cpa-10.1177_07067437231154993 for A Meta-Research of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Mental Health: Comparing Pharmacological to Non-Pharmacological Interventions from 1955 to 2020 by Sheng Chen, PhD, Alina Lee, MSc, and Wei Wang, PhD in The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.130
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.130
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8870.423

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 head0.460
GPT teacher head0.575
Teacher spread0.115 · 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
GenreDataset

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 venueSage Journals Data→French-language works237,207→