MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2961834871 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000005673

Facial Recognition Technology: A Primer for Plastic Surgeons

2019· article· en· W2961834871 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace recognition and analysis
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFacial recognition systemPlastic surgeryFeature (linguistics)Relevance (law)Face (sociological concept)Artificial intelligenceSurgeryPattern recognition (psychology)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The face is arguably the most unique and defining feature of the human body. From birth, humans are conditioned to perceive, interpret, and react to information conveyed by faces both familiar and unfamiliar. Although face recognition is routine for humans, only recently has it become possible for a computer to accurately recognize a human face in an image or video. With advances in artificial intelligence, image capture technology, and Internet connectivity, facial recognition technology has entered the forefront of personal and commercial technology. Plastic surgeons should be prepared to answer questions from patients about the fundamentals of facial recognition technology, and the potential effects of plastic surgery on facial recognition technology performance. This article provides an overview of facial recognition technology, describes its present applications, discusses its relevance within the field of plastic surgery, and provides recommendations for plastic surgeons to consider during preoperative discussions with 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.208 · 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