MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Editorial Commentary

2022· editorial· en· W4283833327 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. Curtis Nickel

Bibliographic record

VenueUrology Practice · 2022
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Urology and Nephrology Studies
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQueen (butterfly)Family medicineLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No AccessUrology PracticeHealth Policy1 Sep 2022Editorial CommentaryThis article comments on the following:Does Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Patients with Specific Comorbidities Reduce the Risk of Infection after Simple Cystourethroscopy? J. Curtis Nickel J. Curtis NickelJ. Curtis Nickel Queen’s University and Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Kington, Ontario, Canada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000325.02AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "Editorial Commentary." Urology Practice, 9(5), p. 421 © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesUrology Practice1 Sep 2022Does Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Patients with Specific Comorbidities Reduce the Risk of Infection after Simple Cystourethroscopy? Volume 9Issue 5September 2022Page: 421-421 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information J. Curtis Nickel Queen’s University and Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Kington, Ontario, 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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0200.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1010.052

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrology PracticeSame topicPediatric Urology and Nephrology StudiesFrench-language works237,207