MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6925486270 · doi:10.17615/1tt9-6558

Appendices of the Conference Paper Titiled "An Empirical Study Evaluating ChatGPT’s Performance in Generating Search Strategies for Systematic Reviews"

2024· article· en· W6925486270 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUNC Libraries · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicChemical and Physical Properties in Aqueous Solutions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpirical researchPresentation (obstetrics)Systematic reviewAssociation (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Appendices A through D are supplementary materials for the conference paper titled “An Empirical Study Evaluating ChatGPT’s Performance in Generating Search Strategies for Systematic Reviews”. This paper has been accepted for presentation at the 87th Annual Meeting of the Association for Information Science & Technology, which will be held from October 25 to 29, 2024, in Calgary, AB, Canada

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.443
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.443
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0130.017
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.6520.207

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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 venueUNC LibrariesSame topicChemical and Physical Properties in Aqueous SolutionsFrench-language works237,207