Topic maps for exploring nosological, lexical, semantic and HL7 structures for clinical data
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
A topic map is implemented for learning about clinical data associated with a hospital stay for patients diagnosed with chronic kidney disease, diabetes and hypertension. The question posed is: how might a topic map help bridge perspectival differences among communities of practice and help make commensurable the different classifications they use? The knowledge layer of the topic map was generated from existing ontological relationships in nosological, lexical, semantic and HL7 boundary objects. Discharge summaries, patient charts and clinical data warehouse entries rectified the clinical knowledge used in practice. These clinical data were normalized to HL7 Clinical Document Architecture (CDA) markup standard and stored in the Clinical Document Repository. Each CDA entry was given a subject identifier and linked with the topic map. The ability of topic maps to function as the infostructure ;glue' is assessed using dimensions of semantic interoperability and commensurability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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