MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974314268 · doi:10.1002/0471142301.nsa04gs33

Blood Collection

2005· article· en· W2974314268 on OpenAlexaff
John Donovan, Patricia Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Protocols in Neuroscience · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blood is most frequently sampled for evaluation of serum antibodies or analysis of surface markers on peripheral blood cells. The protocols offered in this unit describe collection of blood from the orbital sinus or plexus of the mouse, rat, or hamster. With appropriate techniques, small amounts of blood can be obtained with little ill effect on the animal. Collection from the auricular vein or artery of the rabbit is also relatively unstressful to the animal. Bleeding procedures that should be performed on the anesthetized animal include collection from the mouse axillary plexus, cardiac puncture of the mouse, rat, hamster, or rabbit, and collection from the hamster abdominal aorta or vena cava.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0740.065

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Protocols in NeuroscienceSame topicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlFrench-language works237,207