MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7165018098 · doi:10.71548/96

Living evidence profile #9c: Putting evidence at the centre of everyday life: Helping citizens judge what others are claiming or find reliable information

2025· other· en· W7165018098 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 practiceGovernment (linguistics)

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 helping citizens judge what others are claiming or find reliable information, 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)0.068
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.390
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0680.390
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0170.009
Open science0.0070.011
Research integrity0.0290.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1940.093

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
DomainMethods
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→