MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234969424 · doi:10.1177/120347540100500608

What's in a Name? Comments on the Dermatological Dictionary by Ledier, Rosenblum, and Carter

2001· article· en· W4234969424 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedicine and Dermatology Studies History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDermatological diseasesDermatologyPoint (geometry)Set (abstract data type)Computer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Any scientific discipline needs a sharply defined set of words for exact and reproducible communication. Surprisingly this has never been a strong point in dermatological science, especially as regards the living gross pathology of skin disease. Objective: This article briefly reviews the four editions of a dermatological dictionary of words and phrases and gives some thoughts on their usefulness. Conclusion: My conclusions are twofold: we need a new dictionary; at the very least, we need a reprinting of the fourth edition of A Dictionary of Dermatologic Terms by Carter.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.242 · 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