Bibliographic record
Abstract
> Midway upon the journey of our life, > > I found myself within a forest dark, > > For the straightforward path had been lost. > > — The Inferno , Dante Alighieri Commonly after motor-vehicle accidents (MVA), most people are physically fine. Of course, many are reasonably shaken by the prospect of thousands of pounds of metal colliding around their bodies and souls; still, in the absence of fractures, joint disruption, or serious visceral injury, most people walk or drive away, down life’s straightforward path, and the events have little lasting influence. But there are exceptions. The phenomenon of persistent and disabling neck pain after MVA — without serious demonstrable structural injury — has been extensively studied but remains a mysterious process. The incidence of compensation claims and emergency department visits for reported whiplash associated disorders (WAD) has inexorably risen over the past 30 years, despite apparent improvements in motor vehicle safety design. Similarly, despite the apparent better health and resilience in young people, there is evidence that younger people are up to 4 times as likely to file insurance claims or seek treatment after whiplash exposure. Further, the presence of degenerative changes in the cervical spine has, counter-intuitively, not been shown to predispose to increased problems after WAD exposure1. Remarkably, the “usual suspects” that determine most musculoskeletal injury after trauma (force of impact, ligamentous and osseous loads, stabilizing mechanisms, etc.) do not appear to strongly predict eventual WAD problems. Specifically, head restraints, direction of impact, position of the head, awareness of impending impact, the presence of tow bars on bumpers, and so on, all have little if any proven effect on developing WAD problems. And most … Address reprint requests to Dr. Carragee. E-mail: ecarragee{at}mac.com
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.471 | 0.318 |
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".