MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2011044557 · doi:10.1177/1090198106294930

In Memoriam

2007· article· en· W2011044557 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew H. Liang

Notice bibliographique

RevueHealth Education & Behavior · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueSchool Health and Nursing Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institutes of HealthInstitut National Du CancerJohns Hopkins University
Mots-clésGuitarBrotherHEROLuckCreativityBiographySociologyArt historyLawMedia studiesPsychologyHistoryManagementArtPolitical scienceLiteratureTheologyPhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The study published in this issue (Daltroy et al., 2007) was the last one our colleague completed and a fitting acknowledgment of a wonderful personal and professional life. He was born to a family of creativity and leadership. His father was a war hero and a scientist at the renowned Bell Laboratory. His brother is a distinguished scholar of the Incas at Cornell. Born in Vancouver, Canada, he was named after Lawren Harris, one of the famous Group of Seven painters. Like many successful people, he stumbled onto his life’s work. As a European history major at the University of Michigan, he discovered the acoustic guitar and toyed seriously with being a professional musician had not someone suggested public health. The rest was history but he never traveled without lugging his practice guitar. I first met him recruiting for an education expert—a requirement of a National Institutes of Health review committee as a condition of funding. In retrospect, it was a gift, a condition I’ve never heard of before or since. We hardly knew what we were looking for but we advertised internationally and interviewed dozens of candidates. As luck would have it, Larry Greene was on sabbatical at Harvard. Our exploration ended when he recommended a bright grad of his Hopkins program. We invited Lawren to Boston in the dead of a harsh winter in 1982 and driving him to dinner in Cambridge, I realized that we were talking shorthand: The ideas and shared vision were coming faster than we could react. It was like the proverbial “love at first sight.” He accepted the job and began working on a knotty problem, a problem at that point with no funding. Perhaps neither one of us really knew what we had bitten off but were excited by the sheer challenge of it: to critically evaluate the concept of “Back Schools” in a reallife occupational setting, the U.S. Post Office, and to do it with an intervention that went beyond anything that was offered and informed by powerful theory. He stayed for 20 years and turned down bigger jobs and better pay several times. He and I were the only ones who were underpaid in a department-wide survey. Lawren was the associate director of the Robert B. Brigham Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases Clinical Research Center, its first and only, from 1983 to 2003. The Center had an enviable record of scholarship for more than 25 years. More than 45 trainees, many from overseas, spent their formative years in its nest, and most stayed in research of one sort or another, some attained academic distinction. Three died tragically in their prime. All were like extended family. The Center was the model for the National Institutes of Health initiative to develop programs for training clinical investigators.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,086
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,223
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,746

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,086
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,002
Communication savante0,0100,007
Science ouverte0,0030,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,012
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,2230,131

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,112
Tête enseignante GPT0,564
Écart entre enseignants0,452 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHealth Education & BehaviorMême sujetSchool Health and Nursing EducationTravaux en français237 207