MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085030875 · doi:10.1016/j.wem.2014.03.018

Spine Protection in the Austere Environment

2014· letter· en· W2085030875 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ken Zafren, William R. Smith, David E. Johnson, Tim Kovacs

Bibliographic record

VenueWilderness and Environmental Medicine · 2014
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Washington
KeywordsMedicineSupine positionWildernessCervical spineSpinal injurySpinal surgeryTraction (geology)Cervical spine injurySurgeryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the excellent Wilderness Medical Society practice guidelines for spine immobilization in the austere environment.1 We commend the authors for their presentation of the evidence, and we generally agree with their well-considered recommendations. However, we have some concerns, mainly about the proposed algorithm, “Recommendations for spine clearance and immobilization in the austere environment” (Figure 2 of the article).

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0340.036
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.012

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
GenreEditorial

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWilderness and Environmental MedicineSame topicSpinal Fractures and Fixation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207