MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1909044034 · doi:10.1007/978-1-60327-185-1_38

Acute Clip Impact-Compression Model

2008· book-chapter· en· W1909044034 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringer protocols handbooks/Springer protocols · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAxonMedicineCompression (physics)LumbarSpinal cordMechanical compressionSpinal cord compressionSpinal cord injuryAnesthesiaNeuroscienceSurgeryAnatomyPsychologyBiomedical engineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In human spinal cord injury, the most common mechanism is the combination of acute impact and continuing compression. To simulate combined impact-compression, we developed in the 1970s the acute clip impact-compression model, one of the first nontransection models in the rodent. Subsequently, we characterized the relationships between clip strength, duration of compression, and neurological recovery, and established dose-response relationships between the forces of clip compression injury, axon-evoked potentials, spinal cord blood flow, neurological function, axon counts, and retrograde labeling of supraspinal neurons with axonal tracers. Clip injury is useful for in vitro and in vivo SCI studies in rats and mice for cervical, thoracic, and lumbar injuries, and is consistent, reliable, and relatively inexpensive.

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.

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), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.312 · 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