MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6946147593 · doi:10.3205/22ebm001

Treatment of COVID-19, meta-research study II: characteristics of systematic reviews, registered in PROSPERO or published in the L·OVE database

2022· article· en· W6946147593 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGerman Medical Science (German Research Foundation) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsCochrane
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystematic reviewMEDLINEConfidentialityPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/research question: A large number of systematic reviews (SRs) were initiated as part of the first wave of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The aim of this study was to describe the COVID-19 SRs registered in PROSPERO and in the L·OVE database, to analyze the proportion [for full text, please go to the a.m. URL]

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)0.120
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.403
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1200.403
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.024
Bibliometrics0.0140.023
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.913
GPT teacher head0.674
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGerman Medical Science (German Research Foundation)Same topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207