Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract According to the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment ( AMA Guides ), Fifth Edition, an independent medical evaluation (IME) is “an evaluation performed by an independent medical examiner, who evaluates—but does not provide care for—the individual.” In April 2002, the Work Fitness and Disability Evaluation Section of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) prepared a motion defining the rationale why there is no a priori establishment of a patient–physician relationship during an IME. A figure in the article includes the text of the resolution, which was proposed and debated at the House of Delegates but has not yet been adopted by ACOEM. A table prepared by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) enumerates differences between the usual doctor–patient relationship and IMEs in terms of duty to provide care, maintaining records, access to records, and fees. CPSO also clarifies that physicians who agree to conduct third-party examinations of individuals whom they are not currently treating have been hired by a third party to perform a particular task, typically to provide an opinion or answer specific questions about the individual. Clear and effective communication with the individual are particularly important because the individual's livelihood or compensation for injury, as well as the person's continuing health, are at stake.
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 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 | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".