MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386317098 · doi:10.1002/9781119862611.ch23

Documenting a Nutrition History

2023· other· en· W4386317098 on OpenAlexaff
Robin Saar, Sarah Dodd

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicVeterinary Practice and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTone (literature)Variety (cybernetics)PsychologyMedicineClinical historyApplied psychologyComputer scienceSurgeryLinguisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nutrition is now considered to be a fifth vital assessment – temperature, pulse, respiration, pain, and nutritional assessment. Utilizing a variety of questioning techniques can help control the volume or the type of information requested and received by pet parents. The use of a proper tone should be in conjunction with your question. Our tone communicates our emotions behind our words. Providing pet parents with a nutrition history questionnaire, days prior to the consultation can benefit the consultation process.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.026

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 head0.430
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.109 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVeterinary Practice and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207