Physiotherapy treatment of urinary stress incontinence in women. Part 2
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ENWEndNote BIBJabRef, Mendeley RISPapers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero AMA Kwaśna K, Chmielewska D, Piecha M, et al. Physiotherapy treatment of urinary stress incontinence in women. Part 2. Menopause Review/Przegląd Menopauzalny. 2012;11(5):372-375. doi:10.5114/pm.2012.31461. APA Kwaśna, K., Chmielewska, D., Piecha, M., Halski, T., Taradaj, J., & Juras, G. et al. (2012). Physiotherapy treatment of urinary stress incontinence in women. Part 2. Menopause Review/Przegląd Menopauzalny, 11(5), 372-375. https://doi.org/10.5114/pm.2012.31461 Chicago Kwaśna, Krystyna, Daria Chmielewska, Magdalena Piecha, Tomasz Halski, Jakub Taradaj, Grzegorz Juras, and Violetta Skrzypulec-Plinta. 2012. "Physiotherapy treatment of urinary stress incontinence in women. Part 2". Menopause Review/Przegląd Menopauzalny 11 (5): 372-375. doi:10.5114/pm.2012.31461. Harvard Kwaśna, K., Chmielewska, D., Piecha, M., Halski, T., Taradaj, J., Juras, G., and Skrzypulec-Plinta, V. (2012). Physiotherapy treatment of urinary stress incontinence in women. Part 2. Menopause Review/Przegląd Menopauzalny, 11(5), pp.372-375. https://doi.org/10.5114/pm.2012.31461 MLA Kwaśna, Krystyna et al. "Physiotherapy treatment of urinary stress incontinence in women. Part 2." Menopause Review/Przegląd Menopauzalny, vol. 11, no. 5, 2012, pp. 372-375. doi:10.5114/pm.2012.31461. Vancouver Kwaśna K, Chmielewska D, Piecha M, Halski T, Taradaj J, Juras G et al. Physiotherapy treatment of urinary stress incontinence in women. Part 2. Menopause Review/Przegląd Menopauzalny. 2012;11(5):372-375. doi:10.5114/pm.2012.31461.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it