Surgical treatment of endometrial cancer: laparotomy or laparoscopy?
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 Majchrzak-Baczmańska D, Antosiak B, Malinowski A. Surgical treatment of endometrial cancer: laparotomy or laparoscopy?. Menopause Review/Przegląd Menopauzalny. 2013;12(2):125-131. doi:10.5114/pm.2013.35068. APA Majchrzak-Baczmańska, D., Antosiak, B., & Malinowski, A. (2013). Surgical treatment of endometrial cancer: laparotomy or laparoscopy?. Menopause Review/Przegląd Menopauzalny, 12(2), 125-131. https://doi.org/10.5114/pm.2013.35068 Chicago Majchrzak-Baczmańska, Dominika, Beata Antosiak, and Andrzej Malinowski. 2013. "Surgical treatment of endometrial cancer: laparotomy or laparoscopy?". Menopause Review/Przegląd Menopauzalny 12 (2): 125-131. doi:10.5114/pm.2013.35068. Harvard Majchrzak-Baczmańska, D., Antosiak, B., and Malinowski, A. (2013). Surgical treatment of endometrial cancer: laparotomy or laparoscopy?. Menopause Review/Przegląd Menopauzalny, 12(2), pp.125-131. https://doi.org/10.5114/pm.2013.35068 MLA Majchrzak-Baczmańska, Dominika et al. "Surgical treatment of endometrial cancer: laparotomy or laparoscopy?." Menopause Review/Przegląd Menopauzalny, vol. 12, no. 2, 2013, pp. 125-131. doi:10.5114/pm.2013.35068. Vancouver Majchrzak-Baczmańska D, Antosiak B, Malinowski A. Surgical treatment of endometrial cancer: laparotomy or laparoscopy?. Menopause Review/Przegląd Menopauzalny. 2013;12(2):125-131. doi:10.5114/pm.2013.35068.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.018 | 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