Reply to Letter to the Editor regarding “Quantification of needle angles for traditional lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation: an osteological study”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Journal Article Corrected proof Reply to Letter to the Editor regarding “Quantification of needle angles for traditional lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation: an osteological study” Get access John Tran, PhD, John Tran, PhD Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Western University, London, ON N6C 5J1, CanadaParkwood Institute Research, Lawson Health Research Institute, London, ON N6C 0A7, Canada Corresponding author: Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Western University, London, ON N6C 5J1, Canada. Email: john.tran@sjhc.london.on.ca https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7065-0381 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Eldon Loh, MD Eldon Loh, MD Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Western University, London, ON N6C 5J1, CanadaParkwood Institute Research, Lawson Health Research Institute, London, ON N6C 0A7, Canada https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5063-4827 Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Pain Medicine, pnad053, https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnad053 Published: 05 May 2023 Article history Received: 20 April 2023 Accepted: 28 April 2023 Published: 05 May 2023 Corrected and typeset: 08 June 2023
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".