Erratum: Die IMPACT-Umfrage in Deutschland: Nutzung des Gesundheitswesens von Menschen mit Osteogenesis imperfecta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correction to: Die IMPACT-Umfrage in Deutschland: Nutzung des Gesundheitswesens von Menschen mit Osteogenesis imperfecta Osteologie 2025; 34(02): A45 DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1804977 Erratum Semler JO, van Welzenis T, Wekre LL et al. Die IMPACT-Umfrage in Deutschland: Nutzung des Gesundheitswesens von Menschen mit Osteogenesis imperfecta. Osteologie 2025; 34 (02): 148–149. DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1804977 Im oben genannten Artikel wurde der Name der Co-Autorin falsch geschrieben. Richtig ist: S Prince. Die Korrektur wurde in der Onlineversion des Artikels ausgeführt am: 09.02.2026 Publication History Article published online: 13 February 2026 © 2026. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".