MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7164986999 · doi:10.71548/95

Living evidence profile #9b: Putting evidence at the centre of everyday life: Making evidence available to citizens when they are making choices

2025· other· en· W7164986999 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bain T, Ali A, Ciurea P, Dass R, Mishra S, Bhuiya AR, Whitelaw H, Chen K, Gauvin François-Pierre, Moat KA, Lavis JN

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEveryday lifeEmpirical evidenceEvidence-based policyQualitative researchPolicy makingMaking-of

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An overview of the best available research evidence from around the world (i.e., evidence syntheses) and local research evidence (i.e., single studies) and, if applicable, a scan of experiences from other countries and from Canadian provinces and territories, about putting evidence at the centre of everyday life and making evidence available to citizens when they are making choices in response to a decision-maker’s request.

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)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.376
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.376
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0190.010
Open science0.0060.011
Research integrity0.0240.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1660.082

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→French-language works237,207→