MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4236622071 · doi:10.1210/er.2005-9999

From the Editor-in-Chief

2005· article· en· W4236622071 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
E. Brad Thompson

Notice bibliographique

RevueEndocrine Reviews · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueMedical History and Innovations
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEditor in chiefMedicineHistoryManagementEconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The publication Recent Progress in Hormone Research has a distinguished place in the development of endocrinology in the United States. The Hormone Conference of the A.A.A.S. originally met on Gibson Island, in the Chesapeake Bay. In 1944, the venue was moved to Mont Tremblant, in the Laurentian Mountains near Montreal, Canada. There was a strong consensus after that first Laurentian meeting to publish the texts of the presentations, and the result was the first volume of Recent Progress of Hormone Research, edited by Gregory Pincus and published in book form by Academic Press. Pincus was the distinguished Director of the Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research, in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts. Many contributions to endocrinological research came from the scientists there. From that first meeting in 1944, the Laurentian Hormone Conference (or the Laurentian meeting, as it came to be called) became the place to present and hear the best in hormone research. Speakers at the conference tended to be people who had completed an extensive body of work. Consequently, the series of RPHR books contains many summations of important milestones in our field. Following Pincus, E. B. Astwood became the editor of RPHR; then from 1975 to 1986, Roy O. Greep took over the editorship of the series, and from 1987 through 1989 it was edited by James H. Clark. One interesting feature of the RPHR series was that the questions and answers after each talk were published. These often add considerably to one’s understanding of the scientific issues of the time and sometimes give interesting glimpses of the personalities involved. As years went by, the popularity of the Laurentian meeting began to wane, supplanted by other conferences such as the Gordon Conference on Hormone Action. Eventually, a point was reached at which the meeting was no longer sustainable, but, because of its significance to endocrine history and because of the continued popularity of the RPHR series, The Endocrine Society took over the institution. C. Wayne Bardin assumed the editorial duties, and the RPHR meetings were held at a variety of venues, following the original format. Subsequently, P. Michael Conn organized the meetings and edited the series for the Endocrine Society. But again, meeting attendance sagged, and a decision was made to publish the volumes as compendia of invited papers. This was successfully carried out for several years under the editorship of our current Society President, Tony Means, with assistance from the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor of Endocrine Reviews. Publication of the book series concluded in 2004, with volume 59 of RPHR, but our Society did not want to let the important tradition and content of the series end. Because we at Endocrine Reviews already had been involved in editing and overseeing its content, the Publications Committee of The Endocrine Society decided to continue the publication of RPHR as an annual special issue of Endocrine Reviews. This issue of Endocrine Reviews is the first in the new format, continuing the RPHR tradition of selecting as authors representatives of labs that have a long history in working on their subject. Thus, you will see that the articles present primarily the work of the contributor’s laboratory, placed in the context of the general field. They therefore differ from the usual Endocrine Reviews comprehensive review manuscripts and offer the unique perspectives that only individuals personally involved with the work can give. This special RPHR issue is thematic, with papers chosen this year to emphasize the translation of basic research in hormone action to applications in therapy, diagnosis, or prognosis of disease. Alas, our present format no longer allows the immediate follow-up of each article with a ‘Q and A‘ session that can be published along with the papers, but our readers should feel free to communicate with the authors to request clarification on points raised in the published content. We hope that, in this new context, RPHR will continue to provide endocrinologists up-to-date accounts of important and exciting developments in our field of science for years to come.

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)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,803
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,658

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,022
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0050,005
Science ouverte0,0030,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1970,202

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 Opus0,049
Tête enseignante GPT0,281
Écart entre enseignants0,232 · 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.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

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
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEndocrine ReviewsMême sujetMedical History and InnovationsTravaux en français237 207