An assessment of the knowledge of medical students about lymphedema – a survey-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AMA Kruczek WK, Szlachta W, Urbanek T. An assessment of the knowledge of medical students about lymphedema – a survey-based study. Phlebological Review. 2022;30(1):1-7. doi:10.5114/pr.2022.131064. APA Kruczek, W. K., Szlachta, W., & Urbanek, T. (2022). An assessment of the knowledge of medical students about lymphedema – a survey-based study. Phlebological Review, 30(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.5114/pr.2022.131064 Chicago Kruczek, Wiktor K, Wiktoria Szlachta, and Tomasz Urbanek. 2022. "An assessment of the knowledge of medical students about lymphedema – a survey-based study". Phlebological Review 30 (1): 1-7. doi:10.5114/pr.2022.131064. Harvard Kruczek, W., Szlachta, W., and Urbanek, T. (2022). An assessment of the knowledge of medical students about lymphedema – a survey-based study. Phlebological Review, 30(1), pp.1-7. https://doi.org/10.5114/pr.2022.131064 MLA Kruczek, Wiktor et al. "An assessment of the knowledge of medical students about lymphedema – a survey-based study." Phlebological Review, vol. 30, no. 1, 2022, pp. 1-7. doi:10.5114/pr.2022.131064. Vancouver Kruczek W, Szlachta W, Urbanek T. An assessment of the knowledge of medical students about lymphedema – a survey-based study. Phlebological Review. 2022;30(1):1-7. doi:10.5114/pr.2022.131064.
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 | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".