MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6976693566 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12858753

Additional file 3 of Indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review

2020· article· en· W6976693566 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTable (database)Expert opinionKey (lock)Expert systemFile formatOutcome (game theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additional file 3. Indicator data extracted from eligible studies to inform their use in evaluation. This file has a complete list of output and outcome indicators based on methods beyond expert opinion that were extracted from the eligible studies. The table includes the indicators organised by domain, the modes of verification for the indicators, the method the indicators were based on or collected with, the frequency of collection, and the study the indicator was extracted from.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.123
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.123
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0140.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8020.063

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 head0.386
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.129 · 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
DomainEvaluation
GenreReview

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicEvaluation and Performance Assessment→French-language works237,207→