Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 Apr 2018Editorial Comment Alexandre R. Zlotta Alexandre R. ZlottaAlexandre R. Zlotta More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.10.067AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "Editorial Comment." The Journal of Urology, 199(4), p. 967 References 1 : Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted vs. systematic biopsies in men on active surveillance: results of a prospective, randomized Canadian Urology Research Consortium trial. Can Urol Assoc J2017; 11: S173. abstract POD-01.01. Google Scholar © 2018 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 199Issue 4April 2018Page: 967 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2018 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Alexandre R. Zlotta More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.005 | 0.051 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.212 | 0.125 |
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".