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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of olanzapine in acute mania showed significant overall antimanic efficacy, based on reductions in mania ratings. Their subject-level data were pooled to increase statistical power to test for differences in treatment responses among 10 subgroup pairs of interest using generalized estimating equations methods. Similar drug/placebo superiority and responsiveness to olanzapine was found in men versus women, psychotic versus nonpsychotic subjects, and those presenting in mania versus mixed states, and responses were independent of onset age, current age, or prior illness based on episodes, hospitalizations, recent rapid cycling, lifetime substance use, or previous antipsychotic treatment. Olanzapine and placebo responses paralleled closely (r(s) = 0.73). Patients were relatively more responsive to olanzapine who were younger at illness onset, lacked prior substance abuse, and had not previously received antipsychotic treatment (efficacy ratios 1.5-1.7, all P < 0.01). These well-powered comparisons of subgroups of interest indicate broad efficacy of olanzapine in the treatment of acute mania.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it