MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2684939184 · doi:10.4018/ijsvr.2017010102

Medical Semiotics

2017· article· en· W2684939184 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Colaguori, Marcel Danesi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Semiotics and Visual Rhetoric · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemioticsVisual semioticsEpistemologyBiosemioticsSemiosisSocial semioticsSemiotics of cultureSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical semiotics, as a branch of general semiotics, has never really gained a firm foothold in either semiotics itself or medical science. Despite the fact that the discipline of semiotics traces its roots to the medical domain in the ancient world, it has been largely relegated to the margins, with several key exceptions starting with Jakob von Uexküll and more recently Thomas A. Sebeok and the biosemiotic movement. However, there is no evidence that it is a significant and growing autonomous area of research either within biosemiotics or medical practice. The purpose of this paper is to revive interest in medical semiotics examining at the historical principles that would make it highly relevant today in the global village where conceptions of disease and health are in constant flux.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Semiotics and Visual RhetoricSame topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207