MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387670031 · doi:10.3389/frym.2023.1060635

How Do We Swallow and What Can Go Wrong?

2023· article· en· W4387670031 on OpenAlex
Minseo Kim, Shreya Bera, Samantha Shune, Ashwini Namasivayam‐MacDonald

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers for Young Minds · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysphagiaSwallowingMedicineThroatSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For many people, swallowing is an automatic and frequent daily activity. However, some people experience difficulties with swallowing, also called dysphagia, which can include trouble swallowing specific kinds of foods or drinks, or even not being able to swallow at all. It can be common for dysphagic people to cough up anything they eat or drink, to choke, or to feel as if food is stuck in the throat or chest. The inability to eat or drink properly can take away from fun social events like parties and outings. Since dysphagia can cause many problems both physically and emotionally, it is important to identify warning signs and seek treatment. Dysphagia can be managed and treated by speech-language pathologists, who make recommendations for types of foods to eat, assign exercises to strengthen swallowing muscles, and offer other ways to make living with dysphagia a lot easier.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.313 · 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