MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6945278208 · doi:10.25384/sage.21201484

Supplemental Material - A Virtual, Multi-Session Workshop Model for Integrating Patient and Public Perspectives in Research Analysis and Interpretation

2022· article· en· W6945278208 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaSt. Boniface HospitalUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)Qualitative researchQualitative analysisResearch methodologyPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supplemental Material for A Virtual, Multi-Session Workshop Model for Integrating Patient and Public Perspectives in Research Analysis and Interpretation by Nebojša Oravec, BSc, Annette S.H. Schultz, RN, PhD, Brian Bjorklund, BA, April Gregora, BA, Caroline Monnin, BA, MLIS, Mudra G. Dave, BKin, Todd A. Duhamel, PhD, Rakesh C. Arora, MD, PhD, and Anna M. Chudyk in International Journal of Qualitative Methods

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.6620.080

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 head0.580
GPT teacher head0.619
Teacher spread0.039 · 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 designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207