MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7043947732

When lightning strikes…before and after!

2018· article· en· W7043947732 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAcquire (CQUniversity) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLightning (connector)Lightning strikeStormRecreationThunderstorm
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To date in 2017, in the United States, 15 people have been killed by lightning, and on average 31 people are killed per annum [1]; in Canada that number is approximately 10 per annum with another 164 people injured.[2] Outdoor recreation activities have accounted for over 70 per cent of those previously killed and over 62 per cent of those injured by lightning in Canada.[3] It is hypothesized that as global temperatures rise, more and more lightning storms will occur. The number of lightning\nstrikes hitting the surface of the earth is predicted to increase 12% for every degree Celsius of warming.[4] If this prediction is proven to be true, that represents a significant increase in risk to those undertaking recreational activities and those working remotely. Preparation and planning will be of utmost importance in avoiding lightning related\ninjuries. In this article we will outline information about lightning, lightning safety, and management of lightning injuries.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.173 · 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