MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099084711

Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields. HTA Initiative #13. The Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, Edmonton, AB. Retrieved from http://www.ihe.ca/documents/HTA-FR13.pdf on 11

2004· article· en· W7099084711 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicTannin, Tannase and Anticancer Activities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Foundation (evidence)Quality (philosophy)Primary careExpert opinionPublic opinionQuality assessment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper has been prepared on the basis of available information of which the Foundation is aware from public literature and expert opinion and attempts to be current to the date of publication. Additional information and comments relative to the information paper are welcome and should be sent to:

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)0.369
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.575
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3690.575
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.026
Bibliometrics0.0430.054
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0080.008
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.325 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainEvaluation
GenreMethods

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTannin, Tannase and Anticancer ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207