MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6943855794 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/nc4dq

Are patient-centred care interventions effective for the management of chronic musculoskeletal conditions? A systematic review

2020· other· en· W6943855794 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionChiropracticAlternative medicineSystematic reviewIntervention (counseling)Protocol (science)Health careChronic care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a protocol for a systematic review of the effectiveness of patient-centred care interventions for patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions. Principal investigator: Kent Stuber, Adjunct Professor Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, PhD student, University of South Wales Faculty of Life Sciences and Education. Review team members: Silvano Mior, Sandy Sajko, Daphne To, Gina Dolan, Mark Langweiler, Peter McCarthy.

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)0.066
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.161
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0660.161
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.011
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.344 · 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
GenreReview

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 abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207