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
Individuals having frequent abnormal heartbeats interspersed with normal heartbeats may be at an increased risk of sudden cardiac death. However, mechanistic understanding of such cardiac arrhythmias is limited. We present a visual and qualitative method to display statistical properties of abnormal heartbeats. We introduce dynamical "heartprints" which reveal characteristic patterns in long clinical records encompassing approximately 10(5) heartbeats and may provide information about underlying mechanisms. We test if these dynamics can be reproduced by model simulations in which abnormal heartbeats are generated (i) randomly, (ii) at a fixed time interval following a preceding normal heartbeat, or (iii) by an independent oscillator that may or may not interact with the normal heartbeat. We compare the results of these three models and test their limitations to comprehensively simulate the statistical features of selected clinical records. This work introduces methods that can be used to test mathematical models of arrhythmogenesis and to develop a new understanding of underlying electrophysiologic mechanisms of cardiac arrhythmia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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