MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Response to Letter Regarding Article, “Complications Associated With Revision of Sprint Fidelis Leads: Report From the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Device Advisory Committee”

2011· article· en· W2105454419 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ratika Parkash, Eugene Crystal, Jamil Bashir, Christopher S. Simpson, David Birnie, Laurence D. Sterns, Derek V. Exner, Bernard Thibault, Sean P. Connors, Jeff S. Healey, Jean Champagne, Doug Cameron, Iqwal Mangat, Atul Verma, Kevin Wolfe, Vidal Essebag, Teresa Kuś, Félix Ayala-Paredes, Ted Davies, Shubhayan Sanatani, Robert M. Gow, Bernard Coutu, Soori Sivakumaran, Elizabeth A. Stephenson, Andrew D. Krahn

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenRoyal Alexandra HospitalHôpital Notre-DameBC Children's HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreThe Scarborough HospitalSt. Boniface HospitalUniversity Health NetworkHamilton Health SciencesFoothills Medical CentreMemorial University of NewfoundlandCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeMontreal Heart InstituteRoyal Jubilee HospitalSt. Paul's HospitalSunnybrook HospitalQueen's UniversityHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of OttawaChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArt historyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.025
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0370.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies→French-language works237,207→