MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W25396111 · doi:10.1055/s-0034-1394126

The Biotechnology Cluster in Vancouver

2003· article· en· W25396111 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
J. Adam Holbrook, Mónica Salazar-Acosta, Nicola J Crowden, S. Reibling, Katie Warfield, Nancy Weiner

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Spine Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCluster (spacecraft)BiotechnologyBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study Design Literature review. Objective To discuss the evaluation and management of fixed sagittal plane imbalance. Methods A comprehensive literature review was performed on the preoperative evaluation of patients with sagittal plane malalignment, as well as the surgical strategies to address sagittal plane deformity. Results Sagittal plane imbalance is often caused by de novo scoliosis or iatrogenic flat back deformity. Understanding the etiology and magnitude of sagittal malalignment is crucial in realignment planning. Objective parameters have been developed to guide surgeons in determining how much correction is needed to achieve favorable outcomes. Currently, the goals of surgery are to restore a sagittal vertical axis < 5 cm, pelvic tilt < 20 degrees, and lumbar lordosis equal to pelvic incidence ± 9 degrees. Conclusion Sagittal plane malalignment is an increasingly recognized cause of pain and disability. Treatment of sagittal plane imbalance varies according to the etiology, location, and severity of the deformity. Fixed sagittal malalignment often requires complex reconstructive procedures that include osteotomy correction. Reestablishing harmonious spinopelvic alignment is associated with significant improvement in health-related quality-of-life outcome measures and patient satisfaction.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Spine JournalSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207