Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessJournal of UrologyPediatric Urology1 Sep 2020Editorial CommentThis article comments on the following:Kidney Function Surveillance in the National Spina Bifida Patient Registry: A Retrospective Cohort Study Peter Metcalfe Peter MetcalfePeter Metcalfe Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Stoller Children’s Hospital Edmonton, Alberta, Canada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001010.01AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "Editorial Comment." The Journal of Urology, 204(3), p. 586 © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesJournal of UrologyMar 6, 2020, 12:00:00 AMKidney Function Surveillance in the National Spina Bifida Patient Registry: A Retrospective Cohort Study Volume 204Issue 3September 2020Page: 586-586 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Peter Metcalfe Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Stoller Children’s Hospital Edmonton, Alberta, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.167 | 0.096 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".