MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6962694699 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/epb78

Prevalence and seroprevalence of COVID-19 infection among elderly people based on population-based surveys in 2020-2022: A scoping review protocol

2022· other· en· W6962694699 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeroprevalenceElderly peopleProtocol (science)PopulationEpidemiologyPrevalence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The elderly population is one of the most vulnerable populations to COVID-19. However, the number of infections reported from surveillance was believed to be underreported. To better assess the prevalence and seroprevalence of COVID-19 among the elderly in the world, we plan to conduct a scoping review that synthesizes and presents the prevalence and seroprevalence of this population in different times and regions, as well as through various testing 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)0.088
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0880.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.013
Bibliometrics0.0200.013
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.005

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.364 · 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
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207