MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620350982 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100052124

STROKE THERAPY. 1999 . Edited by Leonard P. Miller. Published by: A John Wiley & Sons Inc. 436pp C$187.50 approx.

2000· article· en· W2620350982 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michael D. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusicians’ Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bible College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMillerStroke (engine)MedicineGerontologyAction (physics)EngineeringBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

neuropathology and electrophysiology, to explain consciousness.Although the book can be difficult to read (if you do not have a background in philosophy or psychology), much of it is extremely well written and provides insight into phenomena we all experience.I found the discussion on consciousness and sleep particularly interesting, and now understand why certain noises (i.e. the beeping at the crosswalk which sounds just like my pager) in my neighborhood wake me up when I am on call, whereas I am not conscious of hearing them otherwise.The discussions regarding the importance of language to the development of consciousness were also thought-provoking.The book is not written for the clinical neurologist, and does not offer any guidance in the management of patients with impairments of consciousness.This is not a criticism of the book, as clinicians are not the intended audience.In summary, this is an excellent, up-to-date review of the study of consciousness.It is well laid out, and follows a logical sequence.The discussions following each chapter are particularly insightful.It is designed for those readers interested in understanding the questions regarding consciousness, but will not be helpful to the clinical neurologist for patient care.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1630.199

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicMusicians’ Health and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207