MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170933022 · doi:10.1017/s0965539501000249

Fetal asphyxia and brain damage

2001· article· en· W2170933022 on OpenAlexaff
James A. Low

Bibliographic record

VenueFetal and Maternal Medicine Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and fetal brain pathology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsphyxiaMedicineFetusAsphyxia NeonatorumBrain damageObstetricsPregnancyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fetal asphyxia as a cause of brain damage has been a concern since the 19 th century when the association of asphyxia during labour and asphyxia before the onset of labour to deficits in children was proposed. The significance of fetal asphyxia as a cause of brain damage remained obscure until the middle of the 20 th century when the systematic examination of the effect of asphyxia and ischaemia on the fetus began in the research laboratory. The results of these laboratory studies have provided the foundation of our current understanding of the role of fetal asphyxia as a cause of brain damage. Clinical studies have provided an opportunity to determine if these concepts are equally relevent to the human fetus.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFetal and Maternal Medicine ReviewSame topicNeonatal and fetal brain pathologyFrench-language works237,207