MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2321371004 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100018916

CURRENT MANAGEMENT IN CHILD NEUROLOGY. 2002. Second Edition. Edited By Bernard L. Maria. Published by BC Decker Inc. 562 pages. C$205.54 approx.

2002· article· en· W2321371004 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. M. Dooley

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary scienceHumanitiesArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

humans that EEG potentials arose from the brain and were not consequent to other electrical sources, could have been more fully described.These two scientists form the basis of pioneering studies by Penfield and Jasper in Montreal and therefore of modern neurosurgical therapy.This work by Eadie and Bladin is more fully appreciated through a second reading.The authors considered it necessary to document the observations and theories of many writers leading to repetitiveness in some chapters.In places, the writing style could have been compressed without loss of message.Greater emphasis on the place of epilepsy concepts within scientific knowledge of the day would have provided a valuable perspective.Nonetheless, this book is a careful compilation of much valuable material.The authors have succeeded in their intent.Clinical and basic neuroscientists with an interest in the historical evolution of epilepsy, observations and considerations will find this volume of distinct value.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0960.098

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicChild and Adolescent Health→French-language works237,207→