MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4240922083 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000116

SELF-ASSESSMENT

2015· article· en· W4240922083 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContact dermatitisDermatologyGold alloysAllergic contact dermatitisDentistryPatch testGold alloyAllergyMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Directions: Each question or phrase is followed by 5 response options. Select the single BEST response. Th e whiteness of white gold is due to the inclusion of the following metals EXCEPT cadmium. nickel. palladium. titanium. zinc. Which gold alloy does not release gold? 14-carat gold 24-carat gold Jeweler’s gold white gold All of the above Which substance is the LEAST likely to cause systemic contact dermatitis to gold? coronary stents dental amalgams orbital implants orthopedic prostheses peroral supplements Which site is the LEAST likely for allergic contact dermatitis to gold? ears eyelids genitalia hands neck Common sources of isocyanates include adhesives. lacquers. textile fi nishes. None of the above All of the above Which food is the most common cause of oral allergy syndrome? cow’s milk eggs pork raw fruits seafood Which aeroallergen is associated with celery? birch grass mugwort ragweed All of the above Which substance is a significant source of methylisothiazolinone? dental amalgam textile fi nish wall paint All of the above None of the above Which allergen is the most relevant in patch-tested patients with lichenoid oral lesions linked to amalgam restorations? copper mercury nickel silver tin Answers to Self-Examination for Volume 26(2) of Dermatitis D. (Chen JK, Lampel HP. Dermatitis 2015;26(2):69–77.) C. (Chen JK, Lampel HP. Dermatitis 2015;26(2):69–77.) D. (Chen JK, Lampel HP. Dermatitis 2015;26(2):69–77.) C. (Chen JK, Lampel HP. Dermatitis 2015;26(2):69–77.) E. (Burrows D, Houle M-C, Holness DL, et al. Dermatitis 2015;26(2):94–98.) D. (Price A, Ramachandran S, Smith GP, et al. Dermatitis 2015;26(2):78–99.) E. (Price A, Ramachandran S, Smith GP, et al. Dermatitis 2015;26(2):78–88.) C. (Puangpet P, Chawarung A, McFadden JP. Dermatitis 2015;26(2):99–102.) B. (Lynch M, Ryan A, Galvin S, et al. Dermatitis 2015;26(2):89–93.)

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1540.067

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitis→Same topicContact Dermatitis and Allergies→French-language works237,207→