MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6925343135 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/chxvq

Identifying quality indicators of tools that support the practice of knowledge translation: Protocol for a scoping review

2020· other· en· W6925343135 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPolynomial and algebraic computation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)Quality (philosophy)Identification (biology)Context (archaeology)Data collection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.262
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.442
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2620.442
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.018
Bibliometrics0.0200.021
Science and technology studies0.0100.009
Scholarly communication0.0130.010
Open science0.0060.014
Research integrity0.0130.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.016

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 head0.215
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.272 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreProtocol

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 routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkSame topicPolynomial and algebraic computationFrench-language works237,207