MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2525717443 · doi:10.15439/2016f146

A Conception of Pairwise Comparisons Model for Selection of Appropriate Body Surface Area Calculation Formula

2016· article· en· W2525717443 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Computer Science and Information Systems · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPairwise comparisonConsistency (knowledge bases)Selection (genetic algorithm)Body surface areaComputer scienceVariety (cybernetics)Surface (topology)MathematicsMathematical optimizationApplied mathematicsAlgorithmStatisticsArtificial intelligenceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body surface area (BSA) may be computed using a variety of formulas, but the computed BSA differs from real BSA values for particular subjects. This is presented in the paper by computing BSA values for selected subject and comparing them to the real BSA value obtained with the use of a 3D body scanner. The results show inequalities in the relevant BSA computing formulas. Hence, there is a need to determine a method that will allow to select the best formula for calculating BSA in a particular case. For this purpose, the pairwise comparisons (PC) method is suggested. This article presents a proposition of using consistency-driven PC, as well as the basic and most important aspects of using PC to determine the appropriate BSA calculation formula.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.270 · 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