MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1496880492 · doi:10.1002/bdra.20697

The principles of teratology: Are they still true?

2010· article· en· W1496880492 on OpenAlexaff
Jan M. Friedman

Bibliographic record

VenueBirth Defects Research Part A Clinical and Molecular Teratology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsChild and Family Research InstituteBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeratologyEpistemologyBiologyPhilosophyGeneticsPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

James Wilson originally proposed a set of "Principles of Teratology" in 1959, the year before he helped to found the Teratology Society. By 1977, when these Principles were presented in a more definitive form in Wilson and Fraser's Handbook of Teratology, they had become a standard formulation of the basic tenets of the field. Wilson's Principles have continued to guide scientific research in teratology, and they are widely used in teaching. Recent advances in our knowledge of the molecular and cellular bases of embryogenesis serve only to provide a deeper understanding of the fundamental developmental mechanisms that underlie Wilson's Principles of Teratology.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.327 · 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.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations37
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBirth Defects Research Part A Clinical and Molecular TeratologySame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207