MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901719088 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxy141

L’hypersensibilité aux insectes piqueurs : l’évaluation et la prise en charge chez les enfants et les adolescents

2018· article· fr· W2901719088 on OpenAlexaff
Elissa M. Abrams, Edmond S. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEntomological Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Paediatric Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHumanitiesGynecologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Il y a deux types de réaction à médiation IgE aux insectes piqueurs : les réactions locales étendues et les réactions systémi ques. La prise en charge aiguë des réactions locales étendues dépend des symptômes. En effet, des réactions antérieures de ce type ne justifient pas l’utilisation d’un auto-injecteur d’adrénaline ni l’administration d’une immunothérapie au venin. En revanche, l’administration d’adrénaline par voie intramusculaire est la pierre angulaire de la prise en charge immédiate des réactions systémiques. Pour ce qui est de la prise en charge à long terme, il faut prescrire un auto-injecteur d’adrénaline et demander à un allergologue pédiatrique d’envisager une immunothérapie au venin.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicEntomological Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207