Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dr Gardiner [1] did not discuss the duty of care of those who can do most to protect us in an infective epidemic: our employers. Not to use available protection would, as he says, be a suicide mission. Our military commanders are already criticised for not providing protective equipment to soldiers in the field. It is equally wrong, both ethically and pragmatically, to deny protection those fighting a medical battle. Despite electricity grid failures being rare, hospitals in the UK have generators that are expensive to provide and to maintain, and they are regularly tested. However, I know of no hospital that has any equipment to protect staff from infection to the level recommended by the Toronto team [2], let alone practices its use regularly. Half of the 267 people admitted at Toronto with suspected Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome were health workers, including three anaesthetists and an intensivist. Twenty-one people died. Not to protect such people endangers an essential hospital asset and the lives of its employees, and is a failure of the employers’ duty of care, ‘to ensure, as far as possible, your health, safety and welfare while you’re at work’ [3].
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".