Uremic optic neuropathy – review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ENWEndNote BIBJabRef, Mendeley RISPapers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero AMA Lewczuk N, Bogusławska J, Misiuk-Hojło M. Uremic optic neuropathy – review. Klinika Oczna / Acta Ophthalmologica Polonica. 2018;120(4):232-235. doi:10.5114/ko.2018.82901. APA Lewczuk, N., Bogusławska, J., & Misiuk-Hojło, M. (2018). Uremic optic neuropathy – review. Klinika Oczna / Acta Ophthalmologica Polonica, 120(4), 232-235. https://doi.org/10.5114/ko.2018.82901 Chicago Lewczuk, Natalia, Joanna Bogusławska, and Marta Misiuk-Hojło. 2018. "Uremic optic neuropathy – review". Klinika Oczna / Acta Ophthalmologica Polonica 120 (4): 232-235. doi:10.5114/ko.2018.82901. Harvard Lewczuk, N., Bogusławska, J., and Misiuk-Hojło, M. (2018). Uremic optic neuropathy – review. Klinika Oczna / Acta Ophthalmologica Polonica, 120(4), pp.232-235. https://doi.org/10.5114/ko.2018.82901 MLA Lewczuk, Natalia et al. "Uremic optic neuropathy – review." Klinika Oczna / Acta Ophthalmologica Polonica, vol. 120, no. 4, 2018, pp. 232-235. doi:10.5114/ko.2018.82901. Vancouver Lewczuk N, Bogusławska J, Misiuk-Hojło M. Uremic optic neuropathy – review. Klinika Oczna / Acta Ophthalmologica Polonica. 2018;120(4):232-235. doi:10.5114/ko.2018.82901.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.099 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".