MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319706304 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.091062

Vitamin D in adult health and disease: a review and guideline statement from Osteoporosis Canada (summary)

2010· review· en· W4319706304 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
David A. Hanley, A. Cranney, G. Jones, Susan J. Whiting, William D. Leslie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCollege of Pharmacy and Nutrition, University of SaskatchewanUniversity of ManitobaQueen's UniversityOsteoporosis CanadaUniversity of OttawaUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsOsteoporosisGuidelineVitamin D and neurologyMedicineAlternative medicineStatement (logic)GerontologyDiseaseFamily medicineVitaminInternal medicinePathologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2002 guidelines for the management of osteoporosis published by Osteoporosis Canada [1][1] identified adequate vitamin D status, in addition to calcium from diet or supplements, as essential for the prevention of osteoporosis. Since then, our knowledge of the role of vitamin D (both D2 and D3)

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations60
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207