MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2103762537 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511750847.024

New concepts and recommendations on clinical management and research

2010· book-chapter· en· W2103762537 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Dunk, Sascha Drewlo, Leslie Proctor, John‏ Kingdom

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlacentationBiologyEvolutionary biologyPlacentaMammalEvolution of mammalsZoologyBandicootPhylogenetic treeConvergent evolutionMarsupialPregnancyGeneticsFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comparative studies of placentation across mammals have been greatly facilitated by the availability of phylogenetic trees for the entire range of placental mammals based on molecular data. The three basic placenta types defined by Grosser on grounds of increasing invasiveness epitheliochorial, endotheliochorial, and hemochorial have routinely served as a basis for comparative discussions. Primates differ starkly from all other placental mammal orders because the two extreme kinds of placentation are represented, while the moderately invasive is not. Reliable inference of the primitive condition is an essential starting-point for successful reconstruction of the evolution of placentation in placental mammals. Having considered the general background to evolution of the placenta in primates, it is now possible to focus specifically on catarrhines Old World monkeys, apes, and humans. The architecture of the placenta is notably different in New World monkeys (platyrrhines), which diverged from catarrhines at least 40 mya.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.015
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0150.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.024

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies→French-language works237,207→