MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7014310350

OSTEOMORPHOMETRIC STUDY OF THE COXAL AND SACRUM IN CANINE BREED TOUCH BY DYSPLASIA, APPLICATION FOR THE CREATION OF A NEW PELVIC OSTEOTOMY PLATE

2003· other· fr· W7014310350 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique) · 2003
Typeother
Languagefr
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Orthopedics and Neurology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSacrumPelvic girdlePopulationLumbosacral joint
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La triple ostéotomie du bassin est une opération complexe qui gagnerait à être standardisée. Ses principales complications sont le lâchage d'implants et le rétrécissement de la filière pelvienne. L'objectif de notre étude était de créer une nouvelle plaque de triple ostéotomie adaptable à tout chien de race prédisposée à la dysplasie, en s'assurant d'ancrer deux vis dans le sacrum pour limiter le lâchage d'implants. Cette étude porta sur trois races de chiens prédisposées à la dysplasie, le labrador, le berger allemand et le rottweiler. La population étudiée était constituée de douze chiens , à raison de quatre spécimens par race. L'étude ostéomorphométrique du coxal et du sacrum a révélé une variabilité importante, directement dépendante de la race, la surface du corps sacral présente une variation allant de 181 mm' à 304 mm' dans l'échantillon étudié. De plus, à cette variation importante s'ajoute l'absence de portion commune de corps sacral à l'ensemble de l'échantillon. L'absence de bassin standard et de projection commune de corps sacral compromet la réalisation d'une plaque standard de triple ostéotomie du bassin.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique)Same topicVeterinary Orthopedics and NeurologyFrench-language works237,207