MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037729682 · doi:10.1097/bot.0000000000000072

Hot Topics in Biomechanically Directed Fracture Fixation

2014· review· en· W2037729682 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder and Clavicle Injuries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClavicleFixation (population genetics)HumerusImplantFemurOrthodonticsImplant failureIntramedullary rodHumerus fractureBiomechanicsOrthopedic surgerySurgeryAnatomyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolution of locking plates and modern nail constructs provides the orthopaedic trauma surgeon with a myriad of options with regard to implant selection for common fractures. There is a significant amount of biomechanical literature comparing modern constructs with those conventionally used. A basic understanding of this literature is required to make informed decisions with regard to implant selection in the management of these injuries. This article reviews the most recent biomechanical literature regarding implant selection and application for a variety of commonly treated injuries, including fractures of the clavicle, proximal humerus, distal humerus, intertrochanteric hip region, distal femur, and bicondylar tibial plateau.

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 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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.355 · 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