MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Surgeons Assess Technique for Repairing Distal Biceps Tendon Rupture

2010· article· en· W2326017746 on OpenAlexaff
Ellen Hoffmeister

Bibliographic record

VenueLippincottʼs Bone and Joint Newsletter · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContinuing medical educationContinuing educationMedical educationHealth professionalsPosition (finance)MedicineHealth careBusinessPolitical scienceFinanceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ms. Hoffmeister is a freelance medical writer in Pennsylvania. The author, editors, and all staff in a position to control the content of this CME activity have disclosed that they and their spouses/life partners (if any) have no financial relationships with, or financial interests in, any commercial companies pertaining to this educational activity. To earn CME credit, you must read the CME articles and complete the quiz and evaluation assessment survey on the enclosed form, answering at least 70% of the quiz questions correctly. This continuing medical education activity expires August 31, 2011. The continuing education activity in Lippincott's Bone and Joint Newsletter is intended for health care professionals interested in the practice of musculoskeletal medicine.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.810

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLippincottʼs Bone and Joint NewsletterSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207