Towards a Terminologia Neuroanatomica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article deals with a recent revision of the terminology of the Sections Central Nervous System (CNS; Systema nervosum centrale) and Peripheral Nervous System (PNS; Systema nervosum periphericum) of the Terminologia Anatomica (TA, 1998) and the Terminologia Histologica (TH, 2008). These sections were extensively updated by the Federative International Programme for Anatomical Terminology (FIPAT) Working Group Neuroanatomy of the International Federation of Associations of Anatomists (IFAA). After extensive discussions by FIPAT, and consultation with the IFAA Member Societies, these parts were merged to form a Terminologia Neuroanatomica (TNA). After validation at the IFAA Executive Meeting, September 22, 2016, the TNA has been placed on the open part of the FIPAT website (http://FIPAT.library.dal.ca) as the official FIPAT Terminology. This article outlines the major differences between the TNA and the TA. Clin. Anat. 30:145-155, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".