neurostuff / neurostuff/study_schema
Add `study_type` closed facet at Study level (primary vs secondary literature)*
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- No language data
- Stars
- 0
- Forks
- 1
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
Add a closed study_type enum at the Study node (e.g. primary, meta_analysis, systematic_review, narrative_review, case_report, methods_development, simulation, commentary). This is the corpus-admission gate: keep primary, quarantine the rest.
Why this is an explicit gate, not a deferred-map facet
A meta-analysis or review paper's text is full of primary-study coordinates, contrasts, and tasks quoted from included studies. An open extractor will faithfully pull these as analyses — nothing about the extraction marks them as second-hand. If document type is left to emerge from a lower-level field (e.g. design_type), the failure mode is phantom training pairs: other studies' coordinates entering the corpus as if this paper produced them — the contamination class a contrastive objective learns as signal.
study_type belongs to the "decides whether the extraction should exist at all" class, so unlike descriptive facets it must be defined closed now and scored on its own with confidence, not deferred to second-pass mapping. Bonus: "classify this document's type" is a more natural, higher-accuracy LLM task than "should I exclude this."
Keep it distinct from two orthogonal axes it will be confused with: Study.design (observational/interventional, cross-sectional/longitudinal) and ONVOC's Study Design → Study Types (case-control, cohort, RCT). Both are the epidemiological-design axis; neither captures primary-vs-secondary literature type, which is a new axis we define ourselves.
See also Issue #7 (analysis-level data_origin) for the mixed-paper case this study-level gate does not cover.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
No files or tests are named. Start by locating the Study node definition and existing facet and confidence conventions; compare them with Issue #7's analysis-level data_origin distinction. Done means a closed study_type enum exists at Study level, its confidence is scored separately, and primary is the corpus-admitted value while other listed types are quarantined.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- data
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 45/100