MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2434149122 · doi:10.1111/ijd.13352

History of diapers and diapering

2016· review· en· W2434149122 on OpenAlexaff
Bernice R. Krafchik

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Dermatology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNeonatal skin health care
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersProcter and Gamble Fund
KeywordsDiaper DermatitisMedicineMedical historyCover (algebra)DermatologySurgeryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For centuries, diapering has been a global practice. Most cultures around the world have historically implemented mechanisms to cover the genital area, both for privacy and to contain waste. The latest and most important innovation was the advent of the disposable diaper in the mid-twentieth century. Modern disposable diapers have considerably decreased the incidence of irritant diaper dermatitis through their design and construction. Disposable diaper use continues to grow globally. This article reviews the history of diaper practices worldwide.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.385 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of DermatologySame topicNeonatal skin health careFrench-language works237,207