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
OBJECTIVE: To develop the Crow's Feet Grading Scale for objective quantification of the severity of lateral canthal lines and to establish the reliability of this photonumeric scale for clinical research and practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 5-point photonumeric rating scale was developed to objectively quantify the severity of lateral canthal lines at rest and at maximum contracture of the orbicularis oculi. Nine experts rated photographs of 35 subjects, twice, with regard to the aspect crow's feet in comparison with morphed images. Inter- and intrarater variability was assessed by computing intraclass correlation coefficients. RESULTS: The agreement between the experts was significantly high. Furthermore, the test-retest correlation coefficients were high for each expert after an overnight interval, demonstrating low inter- and intraevaluator variability. CONCLUSION: The 5-point photonumeric scale generated spans the severity of the type of crow's feet for which patients most commonly seek correction. The scale is well stratified for consistent rating.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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