MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083853612 · doi:10.1097/mat.0b013e318199c167

Clinical Design Functions: Round Table Discussions on the Bioengineering of Liquid Ventilators

2009· review· en· W2083853612 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueASAIO Journal · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNational Center for Research Resources
KeywordsRound tableContext (archaeology)Table (database)Outcome (game theory)Function (biology)Ventilation (architecture)MedicineIntensive care medicineMedical physicsEngineering ethicsComputer scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the 6th International Symposium on Perfluorocarbon Application and Liquid Ventilation, a round table discussion on bioengineering was held in which different experts shared their opinions and experiences about the use of a total liquid ventilator design for clinical applications. To structure the discussion, all experts were invited to contribute their knowledge within the context of three matrixes related to the liquid ventilators: 1) function and technology, 2) ventilation modes, and 3) risk analyses. The outcome of this international conference recommends continued development of a total liquid ventilator toward clinical applications.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.226 · 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