Bibliographic record
Abstract
was entitled: ÔArt versus Science'.Authors Dr Fergus Cameron and Dr Carlo Acerini described the evolution of ISPAD meetings from opinion-based discussions derived from personal clinical experience to evidence-based scientific investigation.Clearly, both are important to medicine, and this year, the conference was aptly titled, ÔDiabetes Research and Care: Science and Art in Harmony'.The meeting was held in picturesque Cambridge at the Concert Hall on the Cambridge University campus, an idyllic and appropriate setting to discuss both the art and science of pediatric diabetes care.The conference was truly international, with over 800 registrants from all over the globe, representing a wide variety of disciplines.The conference organizers, Dr David Dunger, Dr Peter Swift, Dr Carlo Acerini, Dr Julie Edge, and Dr Sheridan Waldron, created a superb program, with an excellent balance between basic science and clinical presentations.The first day started off with discussion of recent advances in the study of genetics of diabetes.In his
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".