Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to assess the effect of exposure misclassification when coffee is used as a surrogate measure of caffeine exposure. Subjects were randomly selected from the telephone directories of four regional municipalities in southern Ontario, CANADA: Data on daily caffeine intake from foods, beverages, and medications were collected from June to November 1995 through self-administered, mailed questionnaires from 481 men and women aged 30-75 years. Although coffee was the main source of caffeine, cross-tabulations of exposure to coffee by total caffeine intake showed that assessment of coffee alone severely underestimated caffeine intake by at least one exposure level. A hypothetical 10-fold increase in risk was completely obscured when only coffee was used to estimate total caffeine intake. The results of this study suggest that measuring coffee instead of caffeine intake may contribute to a lack of positive findings in studies of coffee as a risk factor for disease occurrence, if in fact caffeine is the exposure of interest. On the other hand, measurement of coffee, tea, and cola soft drink intake in the present study appeared to approximate caffeine intake sufficiently and not affect risk estimates adversely.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it