MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553631440 · doi:10.1002/ca.22808

Human anatomy nomenclature rules for the computer age

2016· article· en· W2553631440 on OpenAlexaff
Paul E. Neumann, Robert Baud, Pierre Sprumont

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Anatomy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Biological Sciences
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNomenclatureMedicineHuman anatomyTerm (time)AnatomyNatural language processingComputer scienceTaxonomy (biology)Zoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information systems are increasing in importance in biomedical sciences and medical practice. The nomenclature rules of human anatomy were reviewed for adequacy with respect to modern needs. New rules are proposed here to ensure that each Latin term is uniquely associated with an anatomical entity, as short and simple as possible, and machine-interpretable. Observance of these recommendations will also benefit students and translators of the Latin terms into other languages. Clin. Anat. 30:300-302, 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.016

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical AnatomySame topicMedical and Biological SciencesFrench-language works237,207