Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It is hard to imagine that I was President of the AAPM over a decade ago. Having the opportunity to volunteer for the AAPM over my professional career has been a very gratifying and fulfilling experience. My initial interactions with the AAPM were established through the Education Council, where I became active in the summer school subcommittee. There, I connected with former AAPM President Gary Barnes, a great mentor who guided me to become the Scientific Director of the 1991 summer school in Santa Cruz, California, “Specifications, Acceptance Testing, and Quality Control of Diagnostic X-ray Imaging Equipment.” With help from Gary and former AAPM President Robert Gould, this was a well-attended and successful event that propelled me to participate even more in AAPM activities. During the mid-1990s, I became involved in the informatics revolution at UC Davis with the implementation of a “filmless” radiology department. This experience led to another AAPM summer school in 1999 at Sonoma State University, “Practical Digital Imaging and PACS” as Scientific Program Director along with co-directors Larry Filipow and Kathy Andriole. Both summer school events firmly established my presence within the AAPM over the next decade, leading to a 3-year term on the AAPM Board as an at large member from 2004 to 2006, as vice-chair of the Education Council from 2006 to 2008, and as chair in 2009. Several months into 2009, I was nominated as a candidate for President of the AAPM… and was elected to the “Presidential Chain” from 2010 through 2012. As President, I followed Mike Herman and preceded Gary Ezzell, and was grateful for their camaraderie, friendship, and leadership. I fondly remember other members of the Executive committee including Secretary John Gibbons, Treasurer Janelle Molloy, and of course Executive Director Angela Keyser. Of note during these years, the 2012–2014 initiative for Medical Physics clinical residencies demanded attention, where a joint major effort was initiated between the AAPM and RSNA to establish new Diagnostic Imaging residencies. In conjunction with the Council on Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD), the Qualified Medical Physics (QMP) registry was begun. Also, in response to radiation overdose incidents published by the New York Times in 2008–2010, the AAPM formed a working group on Computed Tomography (CT) to develop and publish consensus protocols for various CT exams and equipment, “Notification” and “Dose Alert” recommended values for implementing NEMA XR-25 CT Dose Check, and a CT terminology lexicon—all of which have been continuously available and still evolving for the imaging community and public access through the AAPM website. Without doubt, the highlight of my presidential year occurred in Vancouver, British Columbia, where I had the opportunity to oversee the Joint AAPM/COMP annual meeting—a very lively and exciting event that had beautiful surroundings, great weather, and outstanding educational, scientific, and professional sessions. The Plenary Presidential symposium was entitled, “The Future of Medical Physics Research: Challenges and Opportunities,” organized with the great assistance of former President Bill Hendee, and featuring five AAPM leaders including John Boone, Rebecca Fahrig, David Rogers, George Starkschall, and Per Halvorsen, speaking in front of a packed auditorium and emphasizing the importance of medical physics research to ensure the innovation and creativity of the medical physics profession—messages that are even more crucial and important today.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,393 | 0,425 |
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; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».