MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2480487544 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100118542

Books Reviews - Clinical Electrophysiology: A Handbook for Neurologists. 2011. By Peter W. Kaplan, Thien Nguyen. Published by Wiley-Blackwell. 186 pages. C$85 approx.

2011· article· en· W2480487544 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. George Elleker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Case Reports and Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction (physics)MedicineNeurosciencePsychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What exactly is a "handbook"?The term is elastic and in Neurology is applied to entities ranging from The Handbook of Clinical Neurology series (99 volumes at last count, each many hundreds of pages), to point-form "scut monkey" paperbacks small enough to fit into a resident's lab coat pocket (and now almost completely superseded by hand -held devices).This particular "handbook" under review is neither comprehensive nor useful in the clinical trenches.Indeed the rationale underlying its conception is unclear.The preface declares that the book is designed for "residents, neurology attendings and intensive care specialists" to "order the appropriate electrical test".The introduction declares that the book can be used "to review the meaning of a particular test result that has been received".The structure of the book is arguably organized around clinical problems but this problem-based focus is extremely inconsistent."We provide a test result that may be encountered for a problem" -a focus on examples, rather than on distinguishing features, that is not a typical problem-based strategy.This lack of a coherent rationale for the book and, accordingly, for its organization undermines its usefulness, as does its restriction to problems only occurring in acute hospital settings.And, although designed "to accompany you on your rounds", at 19 x 24.5 cm, this "handbook" will definitely not fit in a lab coat pocket.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1250.172

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicMedical Case Reports and StudiesFrench-language works237,207