MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W39612204 · doi:10.2196/63415

Marine Corps Counterterrorism: Determining Medical Supply Needs for the Chemical Biological Incident Response Force

2004· article· en· W39612204 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Martin Hill, Mike Galameau, Gerry Pang, Paula Konoske

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiological weaponTerrorismFlexibility (engineering)Biological warfareAllowance (engineering)Incident responseYield (engineering)Chemical warfareVariety (cybernetics)Explosive materialComputer securityBusinessUnit (ring theory)Risk analysis (engineering)Medical emergencyEngineeringComputer scienceOperations managementMedicineLawPolitical sciencePsychologyManagementEconomicsSurgeryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Marine Corps Chemical Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) was established in 1996. Since then, CBIRF s mission has expanded to included responses to radiological and high-yield explosive incidents. Its concept of operation has been reworked to include two separate incident response forces within CBIRF. The objective of this study was to determine the medical requirements for a variety of potential terrorism scenarios to which CBIRF may respond. These included domestic and international attacks involving high-yield explosives as well as chemical, biological, and radiological agents. This study was able to identify weaknesses in the existing CBIRF Authorized Medical Allowance Lists, and to strengthen the field medical capabilities of the unit with the addition of new technologies, such as portable ultrasound units to aid in the examination of severely injured victims. At the same time, the study identified ways of modularizing the proposed CBIRF AMAL to provide greater flexibility in responding to terrorist disasters.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.365
GPT teacher head0.609
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
GenreProtocol

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207