MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Animating functional anatomy for the web

2000· article· en· W1994214494 on OpenAlexaff
Geoffrey D. Guttmann

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Anatomical Record · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimationComputer scienceMuscles of masticationAdobe photoshopComputer animationSoftwareMultimediaAnatomyComputer graphics (images)Temporomandibular jointMedicineOrthodontics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The instructor sometimes has a complex task in explaining the concepts of functional anatomy and embryology to health professional students. However, animations can easily illustrate functional anatomy, clinical procedures, or the developing embryo. Web animation increases the accessibility of this information and makes it much more useful for independent student learning. A modified version of the animation can also be used for patient education. This article defines animation, provides a brief history of animation, discusses the principles of animation, illustrates and evaluates some of the video-editing or movie-making computer software programs, and shows examples of two of the author's animations. These two animations are the inferior alveolar nerve block from the mandibular nerve anesthetics unit and normal temporomandibular joint (TMJ) function from the muscles of the mastication and the TMJ function unit. The software discussed are the industry leaders and have made the job of producing computer-based animations much easier. The programs are Adobe Premiere, Adobe After Effects, Apple QuickTime and Macromedia Flash .

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0830.015

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.299 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations30
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Anatomical RecordSame topicSocial Media in Health EducationFrench-language works237,207