Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extract Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthersthe University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and educationby publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford UniversityPress in the UK and certain other countries.Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.© Oxford University Press 2020All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without theprior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permittedby law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproductionrights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of theabove should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at theaddress above.You must not circulate this work in any other formand you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataNames: Croskerry, Pat, author.Title: The cognitive autopsy : a root cause analysis of medical decisionmaking / Croskerry, PatDescription: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2020] |Includes bibliographical references and index.Identifiers: LCCN 2019054280 (print) | LCCN 2019054281 (ebook) |ISBN 9780190088743 (paperback) | ISBN 9780190088767 (epub) |ISBN 9780190088774Subjects: MESH: Emergencies | Clinical Decision-Making | DiagnosticErrors—prevention & control | Emergency Medical Services | Case ReportsClassification: LCC RC86.8 (print) | LCC RC86.8 (ebook) | NLM WB 105 |DDC 616.02/5—dc23LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019054280LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019054281This material is not intended to be, and should not be considered, a substitute for medical or other professional advice.Treatment for the conditions described in this material is highly dependent on the individual circumstances. And, whilethis material is designed to offer accurate information with respect to the subject matter covered and to be current as ofthe time it was written, research and knowledge about medical and health issues is constantly evolving and dose schedulesfor medications are being revised continually, with new side effects recognized and accounted for regularly. Readers musttherefore always check the product information and clinical procedures with the most up-to-date published productinformation and data sheets provided by the manufacturers and the most recent codes of conduct and safety regulation.The publisher and the authors make no representations or warranties to readers, express or implied, as to the accuracy orcompleteness of this material. Without limiting the foregoing, the publisher and the authors make no representationsor warranties as to the accuracy or efficacy of the drug dosages mentioned in the material. The authors and the publisherdo not accept, and expressly disclaim, any responsibility for any liability, loss, or risk that may be claimed or incurred as aconsequence of the use and/or application of any of the contents of this material.9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1Printed by Marquis, Canada
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.099 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".