MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7005677995

Rapid synthesis: Examining the role of coaching in health-system transformations

2020· other· en· W7005677995 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPhytochemical Studies and Bioactivities
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsCoachingQualitative researchWork (physics)Key (lock)Context (archaeology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An in-depth synthesis of what is known based on the best available global research evidence (i.e., evidence syntheses) and local research evidence (i.e., single studies) as well as experiences from other countries and from Canadian provinces and territories about the role of coaching in health-system transformations in response to a decision-makers’ request. This document was prepared in 90 business days using an ‘all hands on deck’ approach.

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)0.146
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.317
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1460.317
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0190.019
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0130.006
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0820.008

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhytochemical Studies and BioactivitiesFrench-language works237,207