MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103538157 · doi:10.1136/jnnp.2010.213520

Minor head injury: do you get what you expect?

2010· letter· en· W2103538157 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Ferrari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · 2010
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiopsychosocial modelWhiplashPsychosocialHead injuryMinor (academic)PsychologyMedicinePhysical therapyClinical psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatryPoison controlMedical emergencyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Having read the study of Whittaker et al 1 concerning expectations and beliefs as predictors of recovery from minor head injury, one appreciates that this is an exciting time in the epidemiological research of these types of disorders. That is, minor head injury, whiplash injury, low back pain and related controversial disorders associated with chronic pain and disability have long been approached with a biopsychosocial model. Furthermore, although more and more studies, especially in the area of whiplash, reveal that the bio component is the least relevant, the ongoing problem has been to determine where to look for the psychosocial component. The common and fertile ground for all these disorders appears to be patient-held beliefs and, as an aspect of those beliefs, their expectations. In a longitudinal cohort study of patients with minor head injury, …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0100.011
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & PsychiatrySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207