MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A NINTH-CENTURY FLYLEAF IN CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY MS Gg.2.21

2016· article· en· W8938037 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gg, Sarah Foot

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParchmentFolioNinthArtQuarter (Canadian coin)HistoryClassicsArt historyAncient historyLiteratureArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate tumour volume measurement from MR images requires some form of objective image segmentation, and therefore a certain degree of automation. Manual methods of separating data according to the various tissue types which they are thought to represent are inherently prone to operator subjectivity and can be very time consuming. A segmentation procedure based on morphological edge detection and region growing has been implemented and tested on a phantom of known adjustable volume. Comparisons have been made with a traditional data thresholding procedure for the determination of tumour volumes on a set of patients with intracerebral glioma. The two methods are shown to give similar results, with the morphological segmentation procedure having the advantages of being automated and faster.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.173 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicMedieval Literature and HistoryFrench-language works237,207