Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cecil Cameron Ewing (1925-2006) was a lecturer and head of ophthalmology at the University of Saskatchewan. Throughout his Canadian career, he was an active researcher who published several articles on retinoschisis and was the editor of the Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology. For his contributions to Canadian ophthalmology, the Canadian Ophthalmological Society awarded Ewing a silver medal. Throughout his celebrated medical career, Ewing maintained his passion for music. His love for music led him to be an active member in choir, orchestra, opera and chamber music in which he sang and played the piano, violin and viola. He was also the director of the American Liszt Society and a member for over 40 years. The connection between music and ophthalmology exists as early as the 18th Century. John Taylor (1703-1772) was an English surgeon who specialized in eye diseases. On the one hand, Taylor was a scientist who contributed to ophthalmology by publishing books on ocular physiology and diseases, and by advancing theories of strabismus. On the other hand, Taylor was a charlatan who traveled throughout Europe and blinded many patients with his surgeries. Taylor’s connection to music was through his surgeries on two of the most famous Baroque composers: Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750) and George Frederick Handel (1685-1759). Bach had a painful eye disorder and after two surgeries by Taylor, Bach was blind. Handel had poor or absent vision prior to Taylor’s surgery, and his vision did not improve after surgery. The connection between ophthalmology and music spans over three centuries from the surgeries of Taylor to the musical passion of Ewing. Ewing E. Cecil Cameron Ewing. BMJ 2006; 332(7552):1278. Jackson DM. Bach, Handel, and the Chevalier Taylor. Med Hist 1968; 12(4):385-93. Zegers RH. The Eyes of Johann Sebastian Bach. Arch Ophthalmol 2005; 123(10):1427-30.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.134 | 0.074 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".