MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6964673681 · doi:10.3205/23ebm059

Datenbankkombinationen für die Recherche systematischer Reviews: eine aktualisierte methodische Studie

2023· article· de· W6964673681 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) · 2023
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsCochrane
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMEDLINEContext (archaeology)Systematic reviewData collection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hintergrund/Fragestellung: Systematische Reviews (SR) sind eine wesentliche Quelle für evidenzbasierte Informationen zu gesundheitsbezogenen Themen. In einer vorangehenden methodischen Studie kamen wir zu dem Ergebnis, dass für die Recherche nach SRs eine Kombination aus MEDLINE und Epistemonikos [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)0.077
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, 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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0770.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.009
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.048

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 head0.400
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.107 · 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