MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2217769384

Health, 'small-worlds', fractals and complex networks: an emerging field.

2003· article· en· W2217769384 on OpenAlexaff
W. Alan C. Mutch, Gerald R. Lefevre

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReductionismFractalComplex networkComputer scienceComplex systemContext (archaeology)Data scienceField (mathematics)Living systemsCognitive scienceEpistemologyArtificial intelligenceSociologyPsychologyMathematicsBiologyWorld Wide Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of 'small-worlds', fractals and complex networks to medicine are discussed. The interrelationship between the concepts is highlighted. 'Small-worlds'--where large populations are linked at the level of the individual have considerable importance for understanding disease transmission. Complex networks where linkages are based on the concept 'the rich get richer' are fundamental in the medical sciences--from enzymatic interactions at the subcellular level to social interactions such as sexual liaisons. Mathematically 'the rich get richer' can be modeled as a power law. Fractal architecture and time sequences can also be modeled by power laws and are ubiquitous in nature with many important examples in medicine. The potential of fractal life support--the return of physiological time sequences to devices such as mechanical ventilators and cardiopulmonary bypass pumps--is presented in the context of a failing complex network. Experimental work suggests that using fractal time sequences improves support of failing organs. Medicine, as a science has much to gain by embracing the interrelated concepts of 'small-worlds', fractals and complex networks. By so doing, medicine will move from the historical reductionist approach toward a more holistic one.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207