SGEM Hot Off the Press: Delayed complications of sternal fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of the Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine (CJEM) developing social media strategy, 1 we are collaborating with the Skeptics' Guide to Emergency Medicine (SGEM) to summarize and critically appraise the current emergency medicine literature using evidence-based medicine principles. In the Hot Off the Press (HOP) series, we select original research manuscripts published in CJEM to be summarized and critically appraised on the SGEM website/podcast 2 and discussed by the study authors and the online EM community. A similar collaboration is underway between the SGEM and Academic Emergency Medicine. What follows is a summary of the selected article and the immediate post-publication critical appraisal from the SGEM podcast, as well as an overview of the subsequent discussion from the SGEM blog and other social media. Through this series, we hope to enhance the value, accessibility, and application of important, clinically relevant EM research. In this, the fifth
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".