← all works
Alternatives to antibiotics—a pipeline portfolio review
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Canadian affiliationAn author listed a Canadian institution. This is the only route the usual frame has.
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.346
- Teacher spread
- 0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
No abstract. This is not a gap in this database — OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.
The record
- Venue
- The Lancet Infectious Diseases
- Topic
- Bacteriophages and microbial interactions
- Field
- Environmental Science
- Canadian institutions
- Pan-Provincial Vaccine EnterpriseUniversity of British Columbia
- Funders
- Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilWellcome Trust
- Keywords
- AntibioticsPortfolioInvestment (military)Intensive care medicineBusinessMedicineRisk analysis (engineering)BiologyPolitical scienceFinanceMicrobiology
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- no