MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Science of Logic by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (review)

2013· article· en· W15219877 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeff Nowers

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCritical Theory and Philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHegelianismPhilosophyEpistemologyPsychoanalysisPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dry eye syndrome (DES) refers to a spectrum of ocular surface diseases with diverse and frequently multiple aetiologies. The common feature of the various manifestations of DES is an abnormal tear film. Tear film abnormalities associated with DES are tear deficiency, owing to insufficient supply or excessive loss, and anomalous tear composition. These categorizations are artificial, as in reality both often coexist. DES disrupts the homeostasis of the tear film with its adjacent structures, and adversely affects its ability to perform essential functions such as supporting the ocular surface epithelium and preventing microbial invasion. In addition, whatever the initial trigger, moderate and severe DES is characterized by ocular surface inflammation, which in turn becomes the cause and consequence of cell damage, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of deterioration. Progress has been made in our understanding of the aetiology and pathogenesis of DES, and these advances have encouraged a proliferation of therapeutic options. This article aims to amalgamate prevailing ideas of DES development, and to assist in that, relevant aspects of the structure, function, and production of the tear film are reviewed. Additionally, a synopsis of therapeutic strategies for DES is presented, detailing treatments currently available, and those in development.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicCritical Theory and PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207