Proposta de política de desenvolvimento de coleções para a biblioteca Carlos Barbosa do Instituto de Artes da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
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
Promulgated by the Canadian surgeon Arthur Vineberg, internal mammary artery implantation received fairly widespread clinical application during the 1960s, only to be abandoned upon the introduction of coronary artery bypass grafting toward the end of the decade. By 1978, Hurst and Logue's The Heart (4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, page 1291) mentioned the procedure only to relate that "indirect myocardial revascularization using the internal thoracic artery is now seldom used." Between the introduction of the operation in 1945 and the mid-1960s, a remarkably hard-fought debate raged over the value of internal mammary artery implantation. Despite the fact that coronary arteriography ultimately demonstrated the viability of Vineberg's concept, for a variety of reasons the operation could not compete with coronary artery bypass grafting, and therefore rapidly fell into disuse. The central role the Vineberg procedure has played in the evolution of coronary revascularization surgery highlights the importance of reviewing the history of its development, application, and eventual abandonment. The Vineberg procedure was, after all, the first intervention documented to increase myocardial perfusion. Recent reports of long-term graft patency and clear patient benefit with internal mammary artery implants reinforce the belief that Vineberg should be given more credit for his work than he has generally received, and that internal mammary artery implantation should not be relegated to the status of a historical curiosity.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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