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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
目的:复方口服避孕药(COC)治疗原发性痛经是否有效尚缺乏大样本高质量的临床研究证实,本研究旨在通过循证医学方法评价COC治疗原发性痛经的安全性及有效性。方法:计算机检索Medline、EMbase、Cochrane Library、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国期刊全文数据库、中文科技期刊全文数据库,检索时间从各数据库建立至2011年7月;同时辅助其他检索方法,所检索文献由两名系统评价者独立评价纳入研究并提取资料,并用RevMan5.1软件进行统计学分析。结果:共纳入8项研究,Meta分析结果显示:与安慰剂组相比,COC组可以降低患者McGill疼痛问卷(MDQ)评分(MD=2.7,95%CI...
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.010 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it