MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981782883 · doi:10.1016/j.jocd.2013.08.001

2013 International Society for Clinical Densitometry Position Development Conference: Task Force on Normative Databases

2013· review· en· W1981782883 on OpenAlexaff
Nelson B. Watts, William D. Leslie, A. Joseph Foldes, Paul D. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Densitometry · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTask forceNormativeProtocol (science)Reference databaseEthnic groupDatabaseLumbar spinePosition (finance)DensitometryReference dataTask (project management)Reference valuesPhysical therapyMedical physicsAlternative medicineSurgeryLawPathologyManagementPublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.173
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.173
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0270.023
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0080.007
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.364
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
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

Citations98
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical DensitometrySame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207