MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W28660017 · doi:10.1039/c5sc03224e

Возможности торакоскопии при проникающих ранениях грудной клетки

2012· article· en· W28660017 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Лобанов Сергей Леонидович, Лобанов Юрий Сергеевич, Ханина Юлия Сергеевна

Bibliographic record

VenueThe BSU Bulletin · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma Management and Diagnosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsThoracoscopyMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The analysis of 163 thoracoscopies at injuries of chest was carried out. Thoracoscopy is an effective method for identifying further tactics at this pathology. Thoracoscopy allows in many cases producing therapeutic measures, which include stop bleeding, aerostaz and others. The use of thoracoscopy in 2.5-3 times reduces number of thoracotomies.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe BSU BulletinSame topicTrauma Management and DiagnosisFrench-language works237,207