MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6931434267 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.4481974

Pelvic Floor Strong Reviews – Is It Worth Trying?

2021· article· en· W6931434267 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Vibration on Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodTSG101HyporeflexiaLiquationDiafiltrationFusible alloyDysgeusiaTriacetin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pelvic Floor Strong is an amazingly fundamental video arrangement that has been given by a standout amongst other health specialists and ladies' wellbeing subject matter experts, Alex Miller situated in Vancouver, Canada. For ladies who are battling with the three-layer condition and pelvic floor brokenness, this program has particularly been proposed for them. It depends on astonishing yet basic activities and body developments that can give solidarity to your pelvic floor absent a lot of exertion or any trouble. Aside from that, the activities that have been examined in this program have the capacity of halting the diastasis recti and spilling.\n\n\nPelvic Floor Strong Reviews - Alex Miller Pelvic Floor Exercise Program Really Works? Review by FitLivings

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0640.026

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicEffects of Vibration on HealthFrench-language works237,207