MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213227945 · doi:10.53607/wrb.v35.34

Urine Trouble! Different Shades of Yellow and How Urinalysis Can Help Our Patients

2017· article· en· W4213227945 on OpenAlexaff
Sherri Cox

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Rehabilitation Bulletin · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Medicine and Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrinalysisTechnicianWildlifeTest (biology)MedicineUrineBiologyInternal medicineEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analyzing urine is an important and inexpensive laboratory test that can be done in a wildlife rehabilitation facility. From basic in–house tests to more in depth analysis assisted by a veterinarian or veterinary technician, urinalysis can tell a lot about what might be happening (or not happening!) with wildlife, including various urinary tract diseases and as an indicator of dehydration. This paper focuses on mammal urinalysis and covers basic physiology, simple diagnostic tests and their interpretation, and possible treatments that may be indicated.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.886

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife Rehabilitation BulletinSame topicVeterinary Medicine and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207