MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109023106 · doi:10.1002/ca.23705

Rules of nomenclature versus principles of revision: An impudent debate

2020· article· en· W3109023106 on OpenAlex
Paul E. Neumann

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

VenueClinical Anatomy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Biological Sciences
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNomenclatureTerminologyVernacularAdjectiveLinguisticsMedicineNounProper nounTaxonomy (biology)PhilosophyBiologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rules of the anatomical nomenclature are sometimes in conflict with the principles of revision of the nomenclature. This is possibly most obvious is the debate about the use of the Latin words pudendus ("shameful") and sacer ("holy") in the anatomical nomenclature. The principles of revision stress preservation of traditional terms even if there are etymological concerns. On the other hand, the nomenclature rules state that anatomical names should, preferably, have informative or descriptive value and that the official Latin terms are the basis for translations of the international standard terminology into modern, vernacular languages. This issue of Clinical Anatomy contains responses to the removal of the noun pudendum and the replacement of the adjective pudendus with pudendalis in the second edition of Terminologia Anatomica.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.193
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.249 · 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