Letters to the editors Giant condylomata acuminata in 10-month-old girl
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ENWEndNote BIBJabRef, Mendeley RISPapers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero AMA Sobjanek M, Wilkowska A. Letters to the editorsGiant condylomata acuminata in 10-month-old girl. Dermatology Review/Przegląd Dermatologiczny. 2015;102(3):263-264. doi:10.5114/dr.2015.51930. APA Sobjanek, M., & Wilkowska, A. (2015). Letters to the editorsGiant condylomata acuminata in 10-month-old girl. Dermatology Review/Przegląd Dermatologiczny, 102(3), 263-264. https://doi.org/10.5114/dr.2015.51930 Chicago Sobjanek, Michał, and Aleksandra Wilkowska. 2015. "Letters to the editorsGiant condylomata acuminata in 10-month-old girl". Dermatology Review/Przegląd Dermatologiczny 102 (3): 263-264. doi:10.5114/dr.2015.51930. Harvard Sobjanek, M., and Wilkowska, A. (2015). Letters to the editorsGiant condylomata acuminata in 10-month-old girl. Dermatology Review/Przegląd Dermatologiczny, 102(3), pp.263-264. https://doi.org/10.5114/dr.2015.51930 MLA Sobjanek, Michał et al. "Letters to the editorsGiant condylomata acuminata in 10-month-old girl." Dermatology Review/Przegląd Dermatologiczny, vol. 102, no. 3, 2015, pp. 263-264. doi:10.5114/dr.2015.51930. Vancouver Sobjanek M, Wilkowska A. Letters to the editorsGiant condylomata acuminata in 10-month-old girl. Dermatology Review/Przegląd Dermatologiczny. 2015;102(3):263-264. doi:10.5114/dr.2015.51930.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".