Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessUrology PracticePatient Care1 Nov 2018Editorial CommentaryThis article comments on the following:Retained Ureteral Stents at a Tertiary Referral Stone Center—Who is at Risk? Kymora B. Scotland and Ben H. Chew Kymora B. ScotlandKymora B. Scotland Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada More articles by this author and Ben H. ChewBen H. Chew Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.urpr.2017.09.018AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "Editorial Commentary." Urology Practice, 5(6), p. 457 References 1 : Practice patterns of ureteral stenting after routine ureteroscopic stone surgery: a survey of practicing urologists. J Endourol2007; 21: 1287. Google Scholar 2 : Characterization of urinary symptoms in patients with ureteral stents. Urology2002; 59: 511. Google Scholar 3 : Preventing the forgotten ureteral stent by using a mobile point-of-care application. J Endourol2017; 31: 719. Google Scholar © 2018 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesUrology Practice20 Sep 2017Retained Ureteral Stents at a Tertiary Referral Stone Center—Who is at Risk? Volume 5Issue 6November 2018Page: 457 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2018 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Kymora B. Scotland Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada More articles by this author Ben H. Chew Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 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 | 0.006 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.194 | 0.080 |
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".