MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214706371 · doi:10.1055/a-1389-2402

Vitamin-D-Supplementierung

2021· article· de· W4214706371 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDer Schmerzpatient · 2021
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Medical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGynecologyHumanitiesArtMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laut eigenen Angaben ergänzen mehr als 3% der Erwachsenen in Kanada ihre Ernährung mit täglich mehr als 4.000 International Units (IU) Vitamin D. Wie sicher eine derart hohe Vitamin-D-Supplementierung ist, wurde bis dato nicht untersucht. Dementsprechend gingen Emma Billington und Kollegen von der ‚University of Calgary‘ der Frage nach, ob Tagesdosen von bis zu 10.000 IU sicher und verträglich für gesunde Erwachsene sind. Publication History Publication Date: 14 April 2021 (online) © 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.009

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.356 · 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
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDer SchmerzpatientSame topicHealth and Medical StudiesFrench-language works237,207