MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7061474730

protocol of diagnosis and of therapy for ankle sprain in the department of urgency in the beauvais hospital : the study of its application for three months the 1ʿ january 2003 to 31 march 2003 enclose

2004· other· fr· W7061474730 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique) · 2004
Typeother
Languagefr
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnkle sprainExercise therapyLower limbPoison control
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au centre hospitalier de Beauvais, il a été mis en place depuis 2 ans un protocole de prise en charge des entorses de la cheville, aux urgences. Il s'articule autour de quatre axes : Aide au diagnostic à travers une feuille d'observation ; Aide à la prescription des radiographies en respectant les critères d'Ottawa ; Aide à l'orientation thérapeutique en privilégiant le traitement fonctionnel ; Aide à l'orientation secondaire du suivi du patient. Le but de cette étude est de connaître l'application réelle de ce protocole et d'estimer la qualité de son application. Nous avons limité notre étude rétrospective à une durée de 3 mois : 384 traumatismes de la cheville ont été recensés, 184 fiches d'observation type ont été remplies. Dans plus d'un cas sur deux, le protocole a donc été utilisé. Le respect des critères d'Ottawa a été impossible à évaluer. Nous avons cherché à estimer la qualité de remplissage des fiches d'observation. Nous avons étudié les orientations thérapeutiques en fonction de la gravité de l'entorse. Cette étude nous a permis de définir les limites de notre protocole. Nous proposons, pour conclure, certains points qui pourraient aboutir à une meilleure observance de ce dernier

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.011

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→