MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2264280699 · doi:10.1136/bmj.h6125

Rectal thermometer should be used for accurate temperature reading, analysis finds

2015· letter· en· W2264280699 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. Wise

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermal Regulation in Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermometerRectal temperatureAnnalsMeasure (data warehouse)Temperature measurementReading (process)MedicineMaterials scienceComputer sciencePhysicsInternal medicineThermodynamicsHistoryPhilosophyData miningLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most of the commonly used peripheral thermometers—those that are used under the arm or orally—do not accurately measure body temperature, a meta-analysis published in Annals of Internal Medicine has found.1 At extremes of body temperature, peripheral temperature measurements may be as much as 1-2°C higher or lower than actual body temperature, the study found. The Canadian researchers said that doctors should consider using a central thermometer when the …

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0170.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.018

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicThermal Regulation in MedicineFrench-language works237,207