MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6962392547 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/7sdkw

Evidence for Models of Integrated Dementia Care: A Scoping Review Protocol

2024· other· en· W6962392547 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaProtocol (science)Integrated carePrimary careBest practiceMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This protocol describes a scoping review with the primary aim of mapping the current state of the integrated dementia care models literature. We will also examine how these models are evaluated, and to what extent they align with best practices for integrated care in a Canadian context.

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)0.193
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.199
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1930.199
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.012
Bibliometrics0.0250.024
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0070.012
Research integrity0.0120.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1130.024

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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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 venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207