MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6925221105 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/xrfyp

OPTIKNEE Consensus

2020· other· en· W6925221105 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsensus conferenceOsteoarthritisRehabilitationMEDLINEScientific consensusSystematic review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OPTIKNEE Consensus is an international consensus exercise aimed at developing evidence-based consensus recommendations for rehabilitation to optimize musculoskeletal health and prevent post-traumatic osteoarthritis following knee trauma. The consensus group involves over 30 individuals including researchers from the fields of rehabilitation, knee injury, and osteoarthritis, as well as patient and clinical (physiotherapy, sport and exercise medicine) partners. The OPTIKNEE Consensus osteoarthritis will culminate in six systematic reviews (meta-analyses) and a consensus document. The OPTIKNEE Consensus has received funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (Planning & Dissemination Grant 410777)

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0080.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.343 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207