MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6965203821 · doi:10.34990/fk2/mv6cmp

Search strategy for Cannabinoids used for medical purposes in children: A living systematic review

2023· dataset· en· W6965203821 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2023
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystematic reviewField (mathematics)MEDLINECochrane LibraryMedical literature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The notes field contains the Ovid multi-file search strategy (MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo) for Cannabinoids used for medical purposes in children: A living systematic review. The files in this dataset contains the full multi-file searches as listed above and the Cochrane Library (Wiley) search run on June 20, 2020 and the update searches run on June 17 2021, April 27 2022, April 24, 2023, and March 1, 2024; the the PRISMA-S Checklist, and the RIS files for each database. (2024-04-05)

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
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: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.007
Bibliometrics0.0220.029
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2000.019

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.355
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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorealisFrench-language works237,207