MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979767895 · doi:10.1002/ca.21228

Should we teach Abernethy and Zuckerkandl?

2011· article· en· W1979767895 on OpenAlex
Andreas Winkelmann

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Anatomy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Biological Sciences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. National Library of Medicine
KeywordsEponymMedicineRelevance (law)Medical literatureMedical journalQuarter (Canadian coin)Family medicinePathologyHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the author analyzed the relevance of anatomical eponyms for medical education by researching 453 anatomical eponyms and their corresponding English or Latin terms in the Medline database. The number of hits in the database ranged from 0 to 34,490 per eponym (median 11). Almost a quarter (110) of the eponyms did not appear at all. Only 11% of those articles that use anatomical eponyms in their title or abstract added a descriptive English or Latin term. In conclusion, familiarity with many of these eponyms is superfluous for medical students, as they are not in common use by the medical community. However, a number of eponyms must be actively retained by students to understand clinicians and efficiently research medical literature.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.259
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.169 · 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