MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323681551 · doi:10.4187/respcare.01903

Pulmonary Function Standards: A Work in Progress

2012· letter· en· W2323681551 on OpenAlexaff
Brian L. Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueRespiratory Care · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWork (physics)Lung functionIntensive care medicineFunction (biology)Pulmonary function testingEngineering ethicsInternal medicineLungMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this issue of Respiratory Care, a report by Borg and Thompson[1][1] examines an aspect of the measurement of static lung volumes according to recommendations in the 2005 American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) Standardisation of Lung Function Testing.[2][2]–[6][3] 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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.014
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0540.051
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.011

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRespiratory CareSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207