MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061923902 · doi:10.1007/s11725-009-0143-y

L’évolution de nos traitements: pourquoi ? comment ? L’exemple de la maladie hémorroïdaire

2009· article· fr· W2061923902 on OpenAlexaff
Paul‐Antoine Lehur, G. Meurette, H. Mounier-Boutoille

Bibliographic record

VenueCôlon & Rectum · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicAnorectal Disease Treatments and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sommes-nous des girouettes insensées pour changer ainsi nos pratiques les plus courantes tous les cinq à dix ans ?» La prise en charge de la maladie hémorroïdaire fait partie de nos préoccupations... et de nos interrogations quotidiennes Qui ne se pose pas ces questions face à un patient se présentant pour maladie hémorroïdaire : faut-il ou non opérer ?Et si oui, comment ?Nous sommes à peu près tous d'accord sur les réponses à la première question, guidés en cela par les recommandations pour la pratique clinique (RPC) élaborées et publiées en 2001 [1] :

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.287 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCôlon & RectumSame topicAnorectal Disease Treatments and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207