Bibliographic record
Abstract
Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Annual MeetingFull AccessLatest Research Findings to Be Spotlighted At Annual MeetingAnthony J. Rothschild, M.D.Anthony J. RothschildSearch for more papers by this author, M.D.Published Online:21 Apr 2006https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.41.8.0026aThe new research program for APA's 2006 annual meeting reflects the importance of basic and clinical neuroscience to psychiatry. The sessions are organized by topic and have been expanded to accommodate myriad excellent submissions.The program begins Monday, May 22, at 9 a.m. with the Young Investigators' Poster Session. It continues at 1 p.m., with the three Young Investigators' Oral/Slide Sessions, which will feature the top-graded young investigator submissions. These sessions highlight some of the most exciting new research submitted by young investigators, covering a broad range of topics with fresh perspectives and surprising results.The New Research Poster Sessions will be held Monday, 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.; Tuesday through Wednesday, noon to 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.; and Thursday, noon to 2 p.m. These sessions will be devoted to mood disorders on Monday; schizophrenia, community psychiatry, psychopharmacology, and biological psychiatry on Tuesday; anxiety, ADHD and disorders of childhood, substance abuse, sleep, and other topics on Wednesday; and treatment issues on Thursday. All of these events will be held in the Toronto Convention Centre.The 1,011 presentations (including 150 young investigator posters and 15 oral/slide presentations) are a diverse and representative sampling of new and significant psychiatric research. We hope that you will find them informative and provocative and make time in your busy schedule to attend them. ▪Anthony J. Rothschild, M.D., is chair of the New Research Subcommittee of APA's Scientific Program Committee. ISSUES NewArchived
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.719 | 0.648 |
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".