MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231252273 · doi:10.33140/jpnb.05.04.03

Some Stress Aspects from Psycho-biophysical Point of View

2020· article· en· W4231252273 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatrics & Neonatal Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiofield Effects and Biophysics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrganismStressorPrestigeOriginalityPsychologyEpistemologySocial psychologyNeuroscienceBiologyPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selye published his famous theory of the stress in Nature in 1936. For the stress motto is the inscription at the main entrance of the Institute of Experimental Medicine and Surgery (Montreal): “Neither the prestige of your subject, and the power of your instruments, nor the extent of your learned¬ness and the precision of your planning, can substitute for the originality of your approach and the keenness of your observation.” The stress in the human organism is a perturbation. This perturbation is regulates by negative feedback. All physiological parameters characterizing the organism oscillate between a minimum and maximum value. The stress is properly a general adaptational answer rised under the influence of some stressor, with characteristic but not specific changes. The organism can, in general, get along namely by switching on also another regulatory mechanism for the convienent control of the altered physiological parameter. All these surplus regulations need excees-energy from the side of the organism, contribute to wear it and for this very reason accelerate the process, of aging. We use the Le-Chatelier principle and determine the measure of psychical organization. For the all laboratorial parameters exists five zones: optimum (1), admissible (2a., 2b.), dangerous (3a., 3b.), inactivity (4a., 4b.) and inviability (5a., 5b.). As a conclusion, the present medical science reserves the word perinormal for naming biophysical, biochemical and physiological responses in a wide range that warn us referring to the existence of mainly quantitative or reversible qualitative changes and the possibility of irreversibly pathological qualitative alterations. We presented of the biophysical modeling of the creativity and talk over the psychological balance of the man.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatrics & Neonatal BiologySame topicBiofield Effects and BiophysicsFrench-language works237,207