MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Health Technology Assessment on the Net: 2014

2014· article· en· W6977022844 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Physics and Python Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)Health technologyTechnology assessmentHealth information technologyInformation technologyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This guide has been developed by the information specialists at the Institute of Health Economics in Edmonton Alberta and is intended to facilitate searching for health technology assessments (HTAs) or systematic reviews by providing the list of current and reliable internet-based resources that we regularly use in our work. We have tried as much as possible to match this guide to our search process. While the particular sources we search depend on their relevance to the topic at hand, this is the master list of resources from which we select when designing a search.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3230.191

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicComputational Physics and Python ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207