Facial Plastic Surgery Clinics of North America: Evidence-Based Procedures in Facial Plastic Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lisa E. Ishii, Travis T. Tollefson, and J. Regan Thomas, eds. Facial Plastic Surgery Clinics of North America: Evidence-Based Procedures in Facial Plastic Surgery . New York, NY: Elsevier, 2015. ISBN-10: 0323393322, ISBN-13: 978-0323393324. $99.00. ![Graphic][1] In our new era of evidence-based medicine, the editors and authors attempt to lay down the current state of best evidence for a number of subjects in facial plastic surgery, including; skin care, lasers, rhinoplasty, facial fractures, facial reanimation, microvascular surgery, cleft lip and palate, and infantile hemangiomas. They also include a primer on systematic reviews, meta-analysis, and evidence-based medicine itself. Drs Ishii, Tollefson, and Thomas are clearly leaders in the field of facial plastic surgery. They are well equipped to bring together this distinguished group of contributors to create an important first step at documenting the levels of evidence on which others can build to bring higher levels of evidence into this field of research. The chapters are clearly written and … Corresponding Author: Dr Donald Lalonde, Dalhousie University, Suite C204, 600 Main Street, Saint John, NB E2K 1J5, Canada E-mail: drdonlalonde{at}nb.aibn.com [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".