MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025043744 · doi:10.5858/arpa.2013-0144-hp

Whence Lepidic?: The History of a Canadian Neologism

2013· article· en· W2025043744 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kirk D. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeologismConfusionTerm (time)Perspective (graphical)MedicinePathologyLinguisticsComputer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligencePsychoanalysisPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term lepidic is used prominently in the recently published multidisciplinary classification of adenocarcinoma. The lack of use in common (nonmedical) English has led to some confusion over the proper definition of this term. This historical perspective traces the history of the term lepidic from its origins at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, through its uses in English pathologic descriptions, to its current state in pulmonary pathology.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations36
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Pathology & Laboratory MedicineSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207