Measuring Surgical Recovery: The Study of Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult urology1 Mar 2006Measuring Surgical Recovery: The Study of Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy S. Bergman, L.S. Feldman, N.E. Mayo, F. Carli, M. Anidjar, D.R. Klassen, C.G. Andrew, M.C. Vassiliou, D.D. Stanbridge, and G.M. Fried S. BergmanS. Bergman More articles by this author , L.S. FeldmanL.S. Feldman More articles by this author , N.E. MayoN.E. Mayo More articles by this author , F. CarliF. Carli More articles by this author , M. AnidjarM. Anidjar More articles by this author , D.R. KlassenD.R. Klassen More articles by this author , C.G. AndrewC.G. Andrew More articles by this author , M.C. VassiliouM.C. Vassiliou More articles by this author , D.D. StanbridgeD.D. Stanbridge More articles by this author , and G.M. FriedG.M. Fried More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00770-6AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "Measuring Surgical Recovery: The Study of Laparoscopic Live Donor Nephrectomy." The Journal of Urology, 175(3), p. 1040 Departments of Surgery, Clinical Epidemiology and Anesthesia, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada© 2006 by American Urological AssociationFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 175Issue 3March 2006Page: 1040 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2006 by American Urological AssociationMetricsAuthor Information S. Bergman More articles by this author L.S. Feldman More articles by this author N.E. Mayo More articles by this author F. Carli More articles by this author M. Anidjar More articles by this author D.R. Klassen More articles by this author C.G. Andrew More articles by this author M.C. Vassiliou More articles by this author D.D. Stanbridge More articles by this author G.M. Fried More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".