Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Following the recent publication of a pair of letters (Knaggs & Bennett, Anaesthesia 2004; 59: 305; Solomans, Anaesthesia 2004; 59: 305) that contained a criticism of a manufacturer and a rebuttal, we were intrigued to see how often manufacturers are prepared to accept criticism in published correspondence. A brief survey of correspondence published in Anaesthesia over the last 4 years has found the following results: of 52 letters commenting on or criticising equipment or drugs, with accompanying manufacturers' replies, half were dismissed by the manufacturer; in 12 the criticisms were accepted as fair; in the remaining 14 responsibility was deemed shared. In several of the rebuttals, the manufacturers completely ignored the criticism, and provided a ‘politician’s' response by answering a different question. Some of this would appear to be a reluctance to admit to anything which might prove legally damaging. Clearly, manufacturers are not at fault every time a piece of equipment or a drug is criticised, but the proportion and manner of such rebuttals seems inappropriate. All original letters for publication undergo some element of peer review prior to publication. We feel that it is time for the Editor-in-Chief to take the manufacturers to task before publication, where replies are clearly unsatisfactory. We thank Dr Moppett and Ms Spendlove for their comments. Manufacturers are always given the chance to respond to criticism of their products, and the vast majority do so in a timely and constructive fashion. Replies are edited for style and format. However, we are also motivated by the need for problems with equipment to be aired within a reasonable time of their being reported, and the delays imposed by waiting for the occasional tardy response mean that we do not always have time to enter into a lengthy debate about whether the manufacturer has fully addressed the point at issue. In practice, of course, the manufacturer's response often speaks for itself, and readers are at liberty to draw the same conclusions as Dr Moppett and Ms Spendlove. M. H. Nathanson Editor and D. Bogod Editor-in-ChiefAnaesthesia AAGBI London, UK
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,007 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».