MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W18063194 · doi:10.1016/j.tmrv.2007.09.004

Facility Management : Bekannheit und Image einer Branche

2009· article· en· W18063194 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christian Coenen, Daniel von Felten

Bibliographic record

VenueTransfusion Medicine Reviews · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Governance and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian surgeons serving in the Canadian Army Medical Corps in the First World War were responsible for introducing transfusion in the management of war casualties to the British Army. They were uniquely placed to do so by a coincidence of circumstances. They were aware of developments occurring in the field of blood transfusion in the United States, which was at the time leading the research and development of transfusion as a therapeutic measure. The ties between Britain and Canada in 1914 were such that Canada entered the war immediately, and Canadians served closely with the British, volunteering promptly and in large numbers. Britain, by contrast with the United States, had little interest in or expertise with blood transfusion. Thus, Canadian surgeons went to war aware of the value of blood transfusion and with some who had actually learned how to use transfusion. They arrived to find no interest or expertise on the part of their British colleagues and had to work hard to convince them of the merits of blood transfusion in the management of hemorrhage. Their efforts were reinforced by the arrival in 1917 of American surgeons bringing their experience with transfusion. By war's end, blood transfusion was generally accepted as the treatment of choice for severe blood loss.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient 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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransfusion Medicine ReviewsSame topicCorporate Governance and ManagementFrench-language works237,207