MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049866975 · doi:10.12968/hosp.2004.65.3.12388

The Ottawa rules for ankle sprains

2004· editorial· en· W2049866975 on OpenAlex
Lucas M. Bachmann, Gerben ter Riet

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHospital Medicine · 2004
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkleMedial malleolusRadiographyFoot (prosody)Emergency departmentLateral malleolusAnkle sprainPhysical therapyOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients presenting with acute ankle sprain are common in general practice and emergency departments. Many patients undergo radiography but only about 10–15% are diagnosed with a fracture of the ankle or mid-foot. The Ottawa ankle rules (Table 1) was developed to reduce the number of unnecessary radiographs (Stiell et al, 1992). The ankle assessment covers the ability to walk four steps (immediately after the injury or at the emergency department) and localized tenderness of the posterior edge or tip of either malleolus (four points). The midfoot assessment covers the ability to walk and the localized tenderness of the navicular or the base of the fifth metatarsal. The test is designed to rule out fractures of the malleolus and the mid-foot.

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)0.385
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.385
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.322 · 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