From Abstract to Publication: The Fate of Research Presented at an Annual Forensic Meeting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In forensic sciences, the fate of abstracts presented at international meetings has not yet been assessed. The purpose of this study is to estimate publication ratio and evaluate possible predictors of publication after the 58th edition of the 2006 American Academy of Forensic Sciences annual meeting. Section of the meeting, type of presentation (oral platform or poster), number of authors per abstract and per paper, time span to publication, countries involved, and journal of publication were tabulated. A total of 623 abstracts were presented, from which 102 were subsequently published as a full paper. The overall publication rate was 16.4%, ranging from 3.4% (jurisprudence) to 28.8% (toxicology). The type of presentation (oral platform or poster) did not significantly affect the outcome of the abstract. However, a higher number of authors, foreign authors, and international collaboration were found to be good predictive factors of publication.
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 | 0.168 | 0.559 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
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".