MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285411946 · doi:10.20517/ais.2022.17

Erratum: White paper: definitions of artificial intelligence and autonomous actions in clinical surgery

2022· erratum· en· W4285411946 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew A. Gumbs, F. Alexander, Konrad Karcz, Élie Chouillard, Roland S. Croner, Jasamine Coles‐Black, Belinda De Simone, Michel Gagner, Brice Gayet, Vincent Grasso, Alfredo Illanes, Takeaki Ishizawa, Luca Milone, Mehmet Mahir Özmen, Micaela Piccoli, Stefanie Spiedel, Gaya Spolverato, Patricia Sylla, Mohammad Abu Hilal, Lee L. Swanström

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Intelligence Surgery · 2022
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhite (mutation)Computer scienceWhite paperArtificial intelligenceCognitive scienceMedicinePsychologyHistoryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.410
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.028 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtificial Intelligence SurgerySame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207