Initial hospital preparation and response to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, based on the British university hospital experience
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
ENWEndNote BIBJabRef, Mendeley RISPapers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero AMA Torlinski T. Initial hospital preparation and response to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, based on the British university hospital experience. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy. 2020;52(3):256-258. doi:10.5114/ait.2020.98491. APA Torlinski, T. (2020). Initial hospital preparation and response to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, based on the British university hospital experience. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy, 52(3), 256-258. https://doi.org/10.5114/ait.2020.98491 Chicago Torlinski, Tomasz. 2020. "Initial hospital preparation and response to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, based on the British university hospital experience". Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy 52 (3): 256-258. doi:10.5114/ait.2020.98491. Harvard Torlinski, T. (2020). Initial hospital preparation and response to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, based on the British university hospital experience. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy, 52(3), pp.256-258. https://doi.org/10.5114/ait.2020.98491 MLA Torlinski, Tomasz. "Initial hospital preparation and response to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, based on the British university hospital experience." Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy, vol. 52, no. 3, 2020, pp. 256-258. doi:10.5114/ait.2020.98491. Vancouver Torlinski T. Initial hospital preparation and response to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, based on the British university hospital experience. Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy. 2020;52(3):256-258. doi:10.5114/ait.2020.98491.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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