MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6964661211 · doi:10.3205/25ebm035

Einbindung von Nutzer:innen in Rapid Reviews – eine Querschnittsstudie

2025· article· de· W6964661211 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGerman Medical Science (German Research Foundation) · 2025
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsCochrane
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMEDLINEBlood capillaryContext (archaeology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hintergrund/Fragestellung: Patient:innen, Kliniker:innen oder politische Entscheidungsträger:innen nutzen Evidenzsynthesen, um informierte Gesundheitsentscheidungen zu treffen. Durch die Einbindung potenzieller Nutzer:innen von Evidenzsynthesen in den Erstellungsprozess kann dessen Relevanz [zum vollständigen Text gelangen Sie über die oben angegebene 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.563
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.257
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5630.257
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.034
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0130.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0880.077

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 head0.637
GPT teacher head0.618
Teacher spread0.019 · 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