MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1560891232 · doi:10.1002/ca.22426

Anatomical eponyms, part 1: To look on the bright side

2014· article· en· W1560891232 on OpenAlexaff
Régis Olry

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Anatomy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Biological Sciences
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSuccessor cardinalFormalityLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of eponyms in medical sciences generally, and in anatomy specifically, remains controversial. In principle, this discussion should have been concluded as far back as 1895 (publication of the first Nomina anatomica): all eponyms should have been removed from the anatomical vocabulary then. In practice, what was believed to be a mere formality proved much more difficult to apply. Most eponyms remain in current use; moreover, their number goes on increasing. Assuming that there's no smoke without fire, we wondered why it seems impossible to get rid of a specific kind of term. The aim of this article and its successor is to weigh up the pros and cons.

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)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.307 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical AnatomySame topicMedical and Biological SciencesFrench-language works237,207