MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331365204 · doi:10.1055/s-0034-1389674

Ist eine Genderspezifische Differenzierung bei Patienten nach Hüft- bzw. Knie-Totalendoprothesenoperation am Beginn der stationären Rehabilitation erforderlich?

2014· article· de· W2331365204 on OpenAlex
Lothar Pohl, T Jovanovic-Mifsud, T Bochdansky

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysikalische Medizin Rehabilitationsmedizin Kurortmedizin · 2014
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePolitical scienceGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Um eine individuelle Gestaltung eines Rehabilitationsplanes zu erstellen, ist ein adäquates Aufnahme-Assessment erforderlich. Wir kombinieren dazu einen international standardisierten Fragebogen (Western Ontario an McMaster Universities Arthritis Index – WOMAC) sowie als Funktionstest den Timed-up-and-go Test (TUAG). Die Schmerzen werden mittels visueller Analogskala (VAS) bestimmt. Ziel der Untersuchung war zu prüfen, ob eine Genderspezifität aus unseren Daten zu ersehen ist, die eine letztlich genderspezifische Rehabilitationsplanung zur Folge hätte.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.253 · 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