Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The definition of consciousness has long been debated in a scientific and philosophical context due to its ambiguous nature. Recent developments in the concept of consciousness have contributed to a better understanding of associated Disorders of Consciousness (DOC). However, there has not been an equivalent rise in the accuracy of diagnostic measures for DOC. About half of the patients with DOC are incorrectly diagnosed due to significant reliance on subjective and inaccurate behavioural scales. Consequently, the misrepresentation of a patient’s present residual consciousness severely affects the treatment and rehabilitation measures that they receive. These inaccurate diagnoses ultimately influence the patient’s chance of survival. Thus, it is necessary to critique the current methods of evaluating consciousness. Neurophysiological scales are explored as a possible alternative method of evaluating consciousness, which is characterized by high sensitivity and objectivity. An understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of different consciousness-evaluating techniques can aid in the advocacy of their widespread use for DOC patients.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it