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
Herbal preparations are sold as dietary supplements in the United States and are subject to the rules and regulations of various health care and economic government agencies that monitor the sale of these products. One approach to assessing the usefulness of these substances is to focus on one particular disease state and then review both the primary literature and expert opinion. The common cold is an important illness due to its recurring nature, the number of people it afflicts, and its economic impact on patients. Dietary supplements have been shown to decrease the duration, the severity, and the frequency of symptoms of the common cold. The most commonly available supplements are zinc, ginseng, echinacea, and vitamin C. Data from expert opinion suggested that certain supplements are more beneficial than others to maintain one's health during episodes of the common cold. Expert opinion regarding the use of dietary supplements in other related infectious respiratory illnesses, such as the flu, when aggregated with expert opinion findings regarding the common cold were not contradictory. The primary literature provided insights into specific dosages and compounds that may be used in practice.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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