MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6964991242 · doi:10.3205/18ebm047

Ändern eingeschränkte systematische Literatursuchen Schlussfolgerungen von Evidenzsynthesen?

2018· article· de· W6964991242 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGerman Medical Science (German Research Foundation) · 2018
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsLibrary and Archives CanadaInstitute of Health Economics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodTSG101DysgeusiaDiafiltrationLiquationTriacetinFusible alloyDemotion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hintergrund: Rapid Reviews entwickelten sich zu einer pragmatischen Alternative zu Systematischen Reviews. Um Zeit zu sparen werden methodische Schritte vereinfacht; häufig die Literatursuche. Man weiß, dass eingeschränkte Suchen nicht alle Studien zu einem Thema finden. Ob sich dadurch[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.

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)0.513
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1200.513
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.016
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.008

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.300 · 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
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGerman Medical Science (German Research Foundation)Same topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207