Bibliographic record
Abstract
Judith G Hall, Judith E Allenson, Karen W Gripp, Anne M Slavotinek. . Published by Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006, £34.99 (paperback), 520. 10: 0‐19‐530149‐8 First a confession—this book has divested me of a longstanding belief that the plane achieved in the horizontal between the lower margin of each bony orbit and the upper margin of the external auditory meatus is actually the Frankfort plane and not Frankfurt. Indeed the examiner in my MRCP short cases who drolly insisted I explain what Germany had to do with height measurement only served to perpetuate my unenlightened state. Then along came the authors of this compact book to dissemble the myth. However, it is not for this reason alone that I am grateful it now sits on my desk. The authors are Canadian and American, and purport that this is a practical manual for geneticists/dysmorphologists or indeed anyone who is involved in the evaluation of children and adults with dysmorphic features. The book is structured by body part …
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.219 | 0.227 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".