MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187509941 · doi:10.1089/acu.2014.1040

Standardized Ear Acupuncture Nomenclature Utilizing Auricular Landmarks and 3-D Graphic Imaging for Delineating Different Auricular Zones

2014· article· en· W2187509941 on OpenAlexaff
Terry Oleson

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Acupuncture · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Biological Sciences
Canadian institutions123 Certification (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAuricleAcupunctureTerminologyPinnaAnatomyPathologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) has actively sought to bring international standardization of the terminology used in acupuncture texts, training, and research. Objectives: The purpose of the present article is to delineate specific auricular landmarks that can be utilized to differentiate one auricular zone from another, thus facilitating international communication regarding the specific, somatotopic location of different parts of the body on the external ear. Methods: Two-dimensional ear diagrams and photographs of actual ears were utilized to develop a detailed, three dimensional (3-D) image of the external ear. These 3-D images were then used to show the specific locations of auricular landmarks and auricular zones in both the American and Chinese systems for representing the somatotopic locations of different body areas. Results: 3-D images of the auricle were created that were able to depict the specific locations of auricular landmarks and auricular zones in both the American and Chinese zone systems. Conclusions: Distinctive auricular landmarks were identified and depicted on two-dimensional and 3-D images of the external ear. These landmarks allowed the comparison of an American auricular zone system to a standardized Chinese auricular zone system.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical AcupunctureSame topicMedical and Biological SciencesFrench-language works237,207