MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058270997 · doi:10.1515/jpm.2011.057

Historical notes on immaturity. Part 2: Surviving against the odds

2011· article· en· W2058270997 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Obladen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Perinatal Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDozenOddsGestational agePediatricsDemographyBirth weightAbortionOdds ratioPregnancyLogistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Survivors of immaturity of outstanding intelligence include Fortunio Licetus, born in 1577, and Isaac Newton, born in 1643. Reliable descriptions began appearing around 1820, and over a dozen infants were born weighing under 1000 g and before World War II, who developed normally. From 1876 to 2006, the birth weight at which half of the infants survived dropped from 2200 to 600 g. Statistics depended on how abortion, stillbirth and live birth were defined, which differed greatly from country to country. WHO definitions in 1993 required the registration of all infants weighing 500 g (22 complete weeks) or above. This definition was not universally adopted, resulting in considerable underreporting. Many medical societies issued ethical recommendations concerning the obligatory or optional treatment of immature infants. The "window", at which treatment is optional has been set at 22-23 weeks (Japan, Germany), 23-24 weeks (UK, USA, Canada), or 24-26 weeks (France, Netherlands, Switzerland). Instead of assessing an infant's individual prognosis, and ignoring its gender, co-morbidities, and particular cause of premature delivery, these rules frequently relied on gestational age alone to initiate or withhold life support.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Perinatal MedicineSame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207