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
The individual amount of alcohol consumed acutely or chronically decides on harm or benefit to a person's health. Available data suggest that one to two drinks in men and one drink in women will benefit the cardiovascular system over time, one drink being 17.6 ml 100 % alcohol. Moderate drinking can reduce the incidence and mortality of coronary artery disease, heart failure, diabetes, ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. More than this amount can lead to alcoholic cardiomyopathy, which is defined as alcohol toxicity to the heart muscle itself by ethanol and its metabolites. Historical examples of interest are the Munich beer heart and the Tübingen wine heart. Associated with chronic alcohol abuse but having different etiologies are beriberi heart disease (vitamin B1 deficiency) and cardiac cirrhosis as hyperdynamic cardiomyopathies, arsenic poising in the Manchester beer epidemic, and cobalt intoxication in Quebec beer drinker's disease. Chronic heavy alcohol abuse will also increase blood pressure and cause a downregulation of the immune system that could lead to increased susceptibility to infections, which in turn could add to the development of heart failure. Myocardial tissue analysis resembles idiopathic cardiomyopathy or chronic myocarditis. In the diagnostic work-up of alcoholic cardiomyopathy, the confirmation of alcohol abuse by carbohydrate deficient transferrin (CDT) and increased liver enzymes, and the involvement of the heart by markers of heart failure (e.g., NT-proBNP) and of necrosis (e.g., troponins or CKMb) is mandatory. Treatment of alcoholic cardiomyopathy consists of alcohol abstinence and heart failure medication.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.053 |
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