Reducing the Preoperative Ecological Footprint in Otolaryngology
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
OBJECTIVES: To (1) evaluate the potential for recycling uncontaminated preoperative waste and (2) identify recycling differences within otolaryngology-head and neck surgery subspecialties. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Three university-affiliated tertiary level hospitals. SUBJECTS: Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery operative procedures. METHODS: A total of 97 operative procedures were evaluated. Preoperative waste products were sorted into recyclable and nonrecyclable materials; intraoperative waste was weighed for volume but not sorted. The preoperative period was defined as the opening of the surgical supply cart for operating room preparation until procedure initiation. Mass and volume of each type of waste were recorded upon the conclusion of the case. RESULTS: Approximately 23.1% of total operative waste mass (36.7% by volume) was derived from the preoperative set-up, of which 89.7% was recyclable. Pediatric procedures produced the least recyclable material per operation as a proportion of total waste, which was statistically different than the 2 highest recyclable subspecialties, general and rhinology (P = .006); the remaining subspecialties did not statistically differ in proportion of recyclable material produced. CONCLUSION: This study identified a source of clean recyclable materials that could eliminate 21% of operating room waste mass.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it