MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W12851918

Small Spacecraft Design for the GRAIL Mission

2012· article· en· W12851918 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart R. Spath

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft and Cryogenic Technologies
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
FundersJet Propulsion LaboratoryMassachusetts Institute of Technology
KeywordsSpacecraftSpacecraft designAerospace engineeringComputer scienceSystems engineeringEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Central venous catheterization for hemodialysis using double cannula has become the preferred central vascular form in acute cases. Moreover, in chronic cases, this form of vascular access has replaced the internal arterio-venous fistula whenever the latter is difficult to realize, or when patient's cardio-circulatory condition would discourage its creation. The central vascular access presents frequent complications, compromising their efficiency and duration. Tesio's central venous catheters were thoroughly studied and manufactured to overcome these complications, allowing a long life span of the vascular access. In this study 108 patients with Tesio's internal jugular central venous catheters were followed-up in the period 1990 to 1994. All patients underwent hemodialysis in Pordenone Center. Central venous access survival fluctuated between 93% and 82% in the first year and the fifth year respectively. However, access survival dropped to 32% after seven years. The accurate choice of the catheters' manufacturing material as well as the correct technical positioning has determined a significant increase in the vascular access survival, thanks to the important decrease in prevalence and seriousness of complications. We believe that the decreased accuracy in catheter management over time is the major cause of delayed loss of the central vascular access.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpacecraft and Cryogenic TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207