MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2126594197 · doi:10.1007/s12079-014-0254-6

The Creation of the Canadian Connective Tissue Conference (CCTC): Twenty Years on

2014· article· en· W2126594197 sur OpenAlexaffabout
A. Robin Poole

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Cell Communication and Signaling · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueConnective tissue disorders research
Établissements canadiensMcGill University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineConnective tissueFamily medicinePathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background When I arrived in Canada in 1977 to establish and direct the Joint Diseases Laboratory at the Shriners Hospital, McGill University, I came from a strong background in connective tissue research in Britain. Originally, in the 1960s, we had national Collagen,Mucopolysaccharide and the Bone and Tooth interest groups that each met regularly and separately. Eventually, the first two groups merged to form the British Society for Matrix Biology. This was and continues to be a very important society as it provides a common meeting ground for students and scientists interested in connective tissue research where progress is shared and collaborations are forged and new training and job opportunities explored. But on arrival in Canada there was very little research in this fundamentally important area. Tony Melchers MRC group in periodontal physiology, that included Jaro Sodek, based in Toronto, was the only group of its kind at that time. There were researchers working on small soft tissue proteoglycans, in Edmonton, Alberta, namely Paul Scott and Carl Pearson; C.P Leblond and his colleagues at McGill who had contributed so much to our understanding of connective tissues and developmental biology, their work inspiring us all. Michel van der Rest was working on collagen in the adjacent Genetics Laboratory at the Shriners Hospital. Dick Cruess, chair of orthopaedics at McGill and Chief Surgeon at Shriners Hospital, who had invited me to start a group at the Shriners Hospital, and his colleague Nelson Mitchell, both based at the Royal Victoria Hospital, were involved in research on joint tissues. They were excellent early role models for the surgeon/ scientist. A number of arthritis researchers were scattered across Canada, mainly with interests in inflammatory arthritis. Connective tissues were never mentioned. Following my arrival, my contacts were mainly with Tony Melcher’s group and laboratories in the USA where there already existed a very strong community of outstanding connective tissue researchers, especially those working on cartilage. These included Larry Rosenberg in NewYork, who gave up orthopaedics to pursue his passion-research on proteoglycans, and Vince Hascall at NIH (proteoglycans) and David Howell and Fred Woessner in Miami (proteases and proteoglycans). Meanwhile Peter Roughley (proteoglycans), John Mort and Anneliese Recklies (proteases) and Elaine Golds (inflammation/cytokines) had joined me in Montreal. Interest in connective tissues had grown progressively in Toronto, with Ken Pritzker working on osteoarthritis, the arrival of Marc Grynpas (bone) from Boston and Rita Kandel (cartilage). Meanwhile, in the early 1980s, Cy Frank, a young orthopaedic surgeon, also with a passion for research, had established a research program in Calgary that would involve orthopaedics, rheumatology, cartilage, tendon, ligament, proteases and bioengineering. By the beginning of the 1990s, Canada had many connective researchers. But they rarely met. Our main meetings were south of the border, such as the Orthopaedic Research Society, or in Europe. There were no opportunities for Canadian scientists and young researchers to meet on a regular basis, and for trainees to seek guidance and explore further training and job opportunities in Canada. I knew of many young researchers moving to the states, often never to return, often because of the lack of a Canadian meeting place.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,072
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,697

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,287
Écart entre enseignants0,270 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

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
Publié2014
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Cell Communication and SignalingMême sujetConnective tissue disorders researchTravaux en français237 207