MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6908494681 · doi:10.3205/19dkou578

Kurzschaft-Hüftendoprothetik bei geriatrischen Patienten: ist das sicher? Ergebnisse einer prospektiven Multicenterstudie

2019· article· de· W6908494681 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGerman Medical Science (German Research Foundation) · 2019
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCongenital diseaseMEDLINEUltrasonographyHuman physiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fragestellung: In der zementfreien Hüftendoprothetik werden Kurzschäfte aufgrund ihrer knochenerhaltenden Philosophie vor allem für junge und aktive Patienten empfohlen. Allerdings könnte die weniger invasive Operationstechnik, welche durch das kurze und meist runde Implantatdesign[zum vollständigen Text gelangen Sie über die oben angegebene URL]

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.033

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.376 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGerman Medical Science (German Research Foundation)Same topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207