MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099438436

620 2001 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Consensus Conference on Cardiac Transplantation

2008· article· en· W7099438436 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Development and Societal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransplantationHeart transplantationConsensus conferenceAnastomosisCardiac hypertrophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alexis Carrell, having perfected techniques of vascular anastomosis, published a report on the successful heterotopic heart transplantation in the dog in 1905 (1). It awaited a better understanding of transplantation biology, forged by Medawar and others in the 1940s, and the development of successful immunosuppressive regimens in renal transplantation in the 1950s for the stage to be set for successful cardiac transplantation. Shumway established a research program in transplantation at Stanford University and published a report with Lower of the first orthotopic canine transplant, using a biatrial anastomotic technique that would be established as the standard approach (2). In 1966, Barnard, a fellow trainee with Shumway at The University of Minnesota in the 1950s, performed the first successful human cardiac transplant at Cape Town, South Africa. There was widespread enthusiasm for the

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUrban Development and Societal IssuesFrench-language works237,207