MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203545864

Electrode scalp impedance differences between electroencephalography machines in healthy dogs.

2021· article· en· W3203545864 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Luca, Michal Hazenfratz, Gabrielle Monteith, Andrea Sánchez, Luís Gaitero, Fiona James

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectroencephalographyScalpElectrical impedanceBioelectrical impedance analysisDanceElectrodeMedicineMaterials sciencePsychologyPhysicsElectrical engineeringArtAnatomyEngineeringInternal medicineNeuroscience
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

≤ 0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.51 to 3.14, SD = 1.42] higher. Impedances from the wired machine ranged between < 0.5 and 9 kΩ (mean = 3.09, median = 2.00, SD = 2.15), whereas impedances from the wireless machine ranged between 2.69 and 6.07 kΩ (mean = 5.92, median = 5.05, SD = 2.59). Despite these differences in impedance measurements, both machines measured similar impedance patterns. The wireless EEG machine's impedance measurements, therefore, should be acceptable for veterinary clinical settings.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207