MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057590741 · doi:10.5692/clinicalneurol.50.778

World Neurology: Challenges, Opportunities and Priorities

2010· article· en· W2057590741 on OpenAlexaff
Vladimir Hachinski

Bibliographic record

VenueRinsho Shinkeigaku · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaceSubspecialtyPromotion (chess)Leverage (statistics)Variety (cybernetics)Public relationsQuality (philosophy)CreativityBusinessQuality of life (healthcare)Value (mathematics)MedicinePolitical sciencePsychiatryNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The brain enables quality of life, creativity and human progress. Without a healthy brain, little else matters. The World Federation of Neurology (WFN) aims to integrate, prioritize, and help apply advances in brain diseases and the promotion of brain health worldwide. Much has been achieved in the understanding, diagnosis and treatment of diseases of the brain in the past 50 years. However, the pace of progress needs to be accelerated further, if we are to help stem the growing burden of neurological disorders. Already, neurological disorders are the leading cause of disability adjusted life years (DALY’s) in the world, and they are projected to rise. Our agenda is huge, and our resources are modest, so that we need to integrate, focus, and leverage improvements in neurological disease and promotion of brain health worldwide. Many opportunities exist for synergy. The Greek root“syn” (with) implies working with others, both individuals and organizations. This includes national, regional, and subspecialty organizations, other international organizations dealing with the brain, the World Health Organization (WHO), governments and industry with which we can synergize. Synergy also implies that the combination is more than the sum of its parts, that is, it creates added value. Value, evaluation, and viability need to be our bywords. An important first step is to survey all relevant activities taking place in a given area. For example, a number of different organizations offer a variety of educational activities. Could something be gained by better coordination and a systematic evaluation of quality and results? It would help to know where we are, before we decide where we are going. Many more neurologists will be involved and much more will need to be done. The challenges are formidable, but so are the opportunities.

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 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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.139 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRinsho ShinkeigakuSame topicNeurology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207