MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315633733 · doi:10.1055/s-0029-1239452

Learning to Perform Ear Reconstruction

2009· article· en· W2315633733 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFacial Plastic Surgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCovenant Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality (philosophy)AptitudeMedical physicsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning how to perform ear reconstruction is very difficult. There are no standardized teaching methods. This has resulted in many ear reconstructions being suboptimal. Learning requires a major commitment by the surgeon. Factors to be seriously considered by those considering performing this surgery are (1) commitment, (2) aptitude, (3) training methods available, (4) surgical skills and experience, and (5) additional equipment needs. Unless all these factors are addressed in a surgeon's decision to perform this form of reconstruction, the end result will be compromised, and patient care will not be optimized. It is hoped that considering these factors and following this approach will result in a higher quality of aesthetic result. The future of ear reconstruction lies in the use of advanced digital technologies and tissue engineering.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.242 · 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