MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391024325 · doi:10.15353/cjo.v68i2.4598

Clinical Diagnosis

2021· article· en· W4391024325 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Catherine Chiarelli

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEsotropiaOptometryMedicineVisual acuityOphthalmologyPediatricsStrabismus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C.W., a 7-year-old male, presented with his parents for another opinion, seeking treatment to improve binocularity. He had been under the care of an ophthalmologist since age 4 years. At that time, glasses were prescribed to correct a right esotropia. Oc­clusion therapy also was recommended, and was done consistently for several months. Two years ago, bifo­cal lenses were prescribed to further improve eye align­ment. At a recent follow-up, C.W and his parents were told that visual acuity and the esotropia were adequately corrected with bifocals, and that no further treatment was required. Annual follow-up was advised.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.009

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.386 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometrySame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207