MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091002108 · doi:10.1542/peds.2006-3001

How Much Sucrose Is Too Much Sucrose?

2007· letter· en· W2091002108 on OpenAlexaff
Céleste Johnston, Françoise Filion, Laurie Snider, Catherine Limperopoulos, Annette Majnemer, Ermelinda Pelausa, Heather Cake, Sharon Stone, Adam Sherrard, Kristina Boyer

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsVancouver Native Health SocietyUniversity of OttawaIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreHealth Sciences CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSucroseDietary SucroseFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor .— Four years ago we published a study that reported negative developmental sequelae after high doses of sucrose in infants <31 weeks' gestational age.1 After numerous inquiries, we …

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0240.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations58
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207