MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003847390 · doi:10.1097/hjh.0b013e32835c552c

Leading the change

2012· article· en· W2003847390 on OpenAlexaff
Praveen Veerabhadrappa, Fadi J. Charchar, Dylan Burger, Maciej Tomaszewski, Bo Carlberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)MedicineOfficerTheme (computing)Library scienceSisterPublic relationsMedical educationPolitical scienceLawWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the second time, the New Investigators’ Symposium of the International Society of Hypertension (ISH) was fully initiated, organized and executed by the ISH Fellows, New Investigators and the New Investigator Committee (NIC); with outstanding support of the ISH President (Stephen Harrap), Officer at Large (Bo Carlberg) and ISH Secretariat [1–3]. The symposium was held on 29 September 2012, as a satellite meeting of the 24th Scientific Meeting of the ISH, at the historic University of Sydney campus. The major theme of the meeting was ‘leading the change’ to foster a collaborative effort of innovation and global leadership in the field of hypertension amongst new investigators. Now in its third year, the New Investigators Network of ISH also provides a forum for these emerging leaders to share their own insights as well as research-related experiences (Fig. 1) [1–3].FIGURE 1: ISH New Investigators at the Second New Investigators’ Symposium.Preparations for the symposium began almost a year ago, through the joint effort of the NIC, Secretariat and Stephen Harrap. Regular monthly teleconference meetings, countless E-mail messages and widespread coverage of the event on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social media platforms were part of the planning process. Details regarding abstract submissions were sent to ISH-affiliated hypertension societies and other ISH sister organizations in advance so that they could inform their younger members of the meeting. Each abstract was graded by ISH New Investigators and then allocated an oral or poster presentation. Delegates representing over a dozen countries registered for the event. The opening remarks were given by Fadi Charchar, the Chair of the Symposium and a member of ISH NIC. Four oral sessions were jointly moderated by NIC members and other New Investigators who attended the conference. The scientific level of all presentations was outstanding – the programme covered a wide range of topics from molecular biology and genetics to the newest trends of hypertension management. The discussion following each presentation was very stimulating. Posters were viewed during lunch and tea breaks. Scoring of each oral and poster presentations was based on abstract grades as well as voting by the NIC and the attendees. New Investigator Committee members, Praveen Veerabhadrappa and Dylan Burger, gave a special talk on the opportunities available to new investigators through the ISH New Investigator Network. Current NIC/ISH initiatives such as the New Investigator of the Month feature, mentorship scheme and ‘Explore’ (new investigator's newsletter) were highlighted. The NIC and the attendees were thrilled to welcome Dr Stuart Spencer, Executive Editor of The Lancet, who had kindly agreed to give a special guest lecture on ‘How to write a research paper and get it published in a good quality medical journal’. Dr Spencer's illuminating lecture was enthusiastically received by all early career scientists. The Lancet Editor's perspective on submission, review and publication process provided many very useful tips on how to prepare a paper that could be published in one of the top medical journals. Dr Spencer stressed upon the importance of simplicity, clarity and brevity in writing. After the closing remarks given by Bo Carlberg, the oral and poster award winners were presented by Dr Spencer (Table 1). Concluding with a social event at a local restaurant participants were given a further opportunity to network and make new friends. Indeed, many new scientific collaborations were formed at this meeting. This was an extremely memorable session hosted by the NIC/ISH for the future generation of hypertension leaders.TABLE 1: Oral and poster presentation awardsThe NIC would also like to extend special thanks to the ISH new investigators who graded abstracts, attended and presented during the meeting. Our special thanks also go to the ISH conference managers, Helen Horsfield, Joanna Prendergast and Josephine Cass for their outstanding support during the past 2 years. The NIC received many encouraging comments from both new investigators and senior ISH members to continue organizing such thought provoking events. The NIC pledges to continue its dedicated work. The NIC and ISH would like to congratulate the following award winners at the 2nd New Investigators’ Symposium, 29 September 2012, University of Sydney. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.012
Scholarly communication0.0240.019
Open science0.0040.020
Research integrity0.0130.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0880.048

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.

Opus teacher head0.563
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.040 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207