MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012692157

Entorse de Cheville

2016· book· fr· W3012692157 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Rozenblat, Aurélie Chaumeil

Bibliographic record

VenueEditions universitaires europeennes eBooks · 2016
Typebook
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’entorse de la cheville est la blessure la plus frequente a la fois chez les sportifs et dans la population generale. L’equipe canadienne de Stiell a etabli des regles, les criteres d’Ottawa, permettant de maniere fiable, de selectionner les patients necessitant un bilan radiographique devant un traumatisme de la cheville. La sensibilite de ces criteres est proche de 100%. Pour autant, il a ete montre qu’ils n’etaient pas appliques en medecine generale. L’objectif principal de cette etude a ete d’essayer d’en determiner les raisons. L’etude qualitative a permis de realiser des entretiens semi-diriges, enregistres, au cabinet de medecins generalistes de Corbeil-Essonnes et de sa peripherie. Un verbatim a ete obtenu puis analyse. Les criteres d’Ottawa ne sont pas appliques pour differents motifs : par meconnaissance; devant certains contextes medico-legaux ; du fait de pressions ou d’inquietudes du patient voire parfois du medecin ; par manque de disponibilite ou d’experience de ce dernier ; selon le profil de certains patients. Ils simplifient pourtant a demarche diagnostique, conduisent a une reduction des depenses de sante et une diminution de l’irradiation des 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.004

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEditions universitaires europeennes eBooksSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207