MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Additional file 1: Table S1. of Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for the treatment of iatrogenic colonoscopic perforations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017· article· W7136050804 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aleix Martínez-Pérez, Nicola de’Angelis, Francesco Brunetti, Yann Le Baleur, Carmen Payá-Llorente, Riccardo Memeo, Federica Gaiani, Marco Manfredi, Paschalis Gavriilidis, G. Nervi, Federico Coccolini, Aurélien Amiot, Iradj Sobhani, Fausto Catena, Gian Luigi de’Angelis

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2017
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpen surgeryTable (database)Laparoscopic surgeryOperating tableQuality (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quality assessment of the included non-randomized studies based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). (DOCX 57 kb)

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
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: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7950.037

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→