MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2207431978 · doi:10.1159/000360452

The Evolution of Endoillumination

2014· review· en· W2207431978 on OpenAlexaff
David R. Chow

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopments in ophthalmology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Macular Surgery
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSAFERInstrumentation (computer programming)Gauge (firearms)MedicineLight sourceVisualizationOptometryComputer scienceOpticsPhysicsArtificial intelligenceHistoryComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in endoillumination over the last decade have been numerous and were necessary to allow transition to smaller-gauge vitrectomy systems. Advances in light sources and their associated filters have resulted in safer, more powerful light sources that provide enough output to drive small fibers for 27-gauge surgery, chandeliers, and lighted instrumentation. Filtered light can also be used to enhance tissue visualization. This chapter will review the history and advances in light sources.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.327 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopments in ophthalmologySame topicRetinal and Macular SurgeryFrench-language works237,207