MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117246893 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/y62zs

Codesign of dementia education for healthcare professionals and students: A scoping review protocol

2025· other· W7117246893 on OpenAlexaff
Joey Oi Yee Wong, Winnie Sun, Lillian Hung, Alison Phinney

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2025
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaHealth careHealth professionalsProtocol (science)Relation (database)Process (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This scoping review aims to understand the extent and types of evidence in relation to the codesign process of dementia education for healthcare professionals and students.

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)0.223
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.261
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2230.261
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.011
Bibliometrics0.0210.016
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0050.009
Research integrity0.0100.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.007

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.555
Teacher spread0.492 · 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
GenreProtocol

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207