MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2308769015 · doi:10.1056/nejm-jw.na39196

Canadian Guidelines for Targeted Temperature Management

2015· article· en· W2308769015 on OpenAlex
Daniel M. Lindberg

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal watch · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeurointensive careTargeted temperature managementClinical trialEmergency departmentFamily medicineEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineNursingResuscitationCardiopulmonary resuscitationInternal medicineReturn of spontaneous circulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sponsoring Organizations: Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, Canadian Critical Care Society, Canadian Neurocritical Care Society, and Canadian Critical Care Trials Group Target Population: Emergency physicians, critical care physicians, neurologists, cardiologists, acute care surgeons Background Targeted temperature management (TTM) has been an important part of neuroprotection for comatose survivors of cardiac arrest since the publication of two articles in 2002 that showed its benefit (NEJM JW Emerg Med Apr 2002 and N Engl J Med 2002; 346:549 and 557). Four Canadian clinical societies worked …

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.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.298 · 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