MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6939639425 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.10288006

MOESM2 of A systematic review of BCG vaccination policies among high-risk groups in low TB-burden countries: implications for vaccination strategy in Canadian indigenous communities

2019· article· en· W6939639425 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmune responses and vaccinations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousVaccinationQuality (philosophy)Table (database)Public healthQuality assessmentPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additional file 2. Individual Study Quality Assessment Scores for RCTs, Observational, Case-control and Quasi-experimental studies. A table providing quality assessment scores (low, unclear or high) for each criterion assessed for included RCTs, observational, case-control and quasi-experimental studies.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.177
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.177
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.014
Bibliometrics0.0170.020
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2280.006

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicImmune responses and vaccinationsFrench-language works237,207