Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Story of Orthopaedics Author: RANG, Mercer, MB, BS, FRCS (Eng) (Univ. of Toronto)Bibliographic Data: (ISBN: 0–7216-7141–1, W. B. Saunders, 2000, $79.00) 587 pages, hard cover Audiences: Orthopedic Surgeons, History of Medicine Scholars, Students Subjects: Orthopedics, History of Medicine Other Info: The book contains black-and-white illustrations. DESCRIPTION: This book is the story of the subspecialty of orthopedic medicine. PURPOSE: The purpose is to chronicle the contributions of individuals in the treatment of disorders which affect mainly the musculoskeletal system. This most worthy objective is more than adequately met by the author, who is a Professor of Surgery at the University of Toronto. His main interest is pediatric orthopedic surgery. He is a senior attending physician at the Hospital for Sick Children and the Bloorview MacMillan Center in Toronto. He has written other important books in orthopedics such as Children’s Fractures (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1983) and Anthology of Orthopedics (E&S Livingston, LTD, 1966). It is the latter book, a collection of biographies and classic papers, which laid the foundation and drive for him to write this single authored masterpiece. AUDIENCE: The book is written mainly for anyone interested in medical history in general, and orthopedics in particular. The author is fully qualified to write this monumental work. ASSESSMENT: As one who has practiced close to three decades of orthopedics, I have witnessed some of this amazing story unfold. One can only hope, as this story is told, that the practice of limb amputation for such diseases as bone cancer will be viewed as a barbaric act which is no longer practiced by surgeons. The author is to be commended for this most excellent text. I very highly recommend it to all orthopedists, orthopedic residents, and others interested in medical history. SCORE: Weighted Numerical Score: 92 - ****
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".