Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As my career (such as it is) winds its way on, I have begun to consider its impact: have I “given anything back”? Might I, for example, have a Rule named after me (as Canada has done, repeatedly, not that I’m comparing myself with an entire country, really, but how many rules can one country have?) that will teach residents and perhaps attendings in distant programs and indeed hospitals AND countries (like maybe the one to my north)? During my residency I was present at the creation of a rule that was transiently famous at Christiana Hospital, called the Stearn-Scott Hopper Sign. It was named for a resident and an attending in the program at Delaware who have asked me to leave out any further identifiers. That rule stated that any complaint involving a patient over the age of 70 years and a toilet meant that the patient would go to the intensive care unit (ICU) if he or she didn’t die in the emergency department (ED). Likewise, for at least 15 years after I started at Rhode Island Hospital, where (as elsewhere) the ICU bed numbers never seem to keep pace with the numbers of sick ED patients, all one had to say to get a patient admitted to a Unit was “well, they’re Hmong” and beds would mysteriously open up. This was known as the Cambodian Exception: even what seemed like a urinary tract infection could go to the ICU, if the patient was Hmong (a stoic and hospital-averse people, in large part). I think my only claim to originality might be called The Libby Law—a.k.a. the One Car Rule: one complaint comes to the ED in one car or, to explicate more fulsomely, the seriousness of a presentation can be divided by the number of people who travel together in one mode of transport to arrive in your ED. It is self-evident, most of the time—we have all had our expectations of an emergent condition ratcheted significantly downward when the toothache in bed three turns out to be the significant other of the low back pain in bed 10, and that is as it should be; each one has a third of a significant problem, and the apparent math mystery is solved when it is discovered that they both were driven to the ED by the “medication refill” patient in bed 15. In another scenario, the Really Sick Guy in the critical care room was driven to the hospital by the migraine patient in bed 11 (in this case, since the migraine was caused by the stress of the drive with the Really Sick Guy, part of the severity of the headache is subsumed under the critical illness, adding up to the necessary One Complaint …; you see, it all works out). Likewise, the four kids with colds (four folders, all in bed number 5) should, by virtue of the Libby Law, all be colds. Just colds. And not as bad as the one you are currently working with. It’s a modest proposal, and in truth I would not mind (much) if it is just known as the Car Rule. Although then I’ll have to drag a copy of this journal with me, to reinforce my authorship. You will have noticed that Canada does not have to do that.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle