An introduction to the International Brain Research Organization: IBRO's beginnings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the dawn of modern neuroscience—midway through the 20th century—the International Brain Research Organization (IBRO) was already in the ether. It was a time filled with both difficulty and optimism: in the aftermath of the Second World War and during the emerging Cold War, science played a critical role in trying to bridge communities that were separated by political dissent. The seeds of IBRO took root during various scientific meetings occurring in the late 1940s and the 1950s, starting with a meeting of electroencephalographers in London in 1947. Momentum built as neuroscientists in many countries expressed a need for a central organization that would cut across world boundaries and improve communication and collaboration among brain researchers. At the 1958 Moscow Colloquium of EEG and Higher Nervous Activity, there was unanimous support for a resolution proposing the creation of an international organization representing brain research worldwide. In 1960, the Canadian Parliament discussed a bill to approve the charter that created IBRO, and formally established the organization in 1961, the same year in which construction began on the Berlin Wall. Working out of his office at the Montreal Neurological Institute of McGill University, Canada, IBRO's first Secretary-General Herbert Jasper and other IBRO volunteers focused their early efforts on creating a worldwide registry of neuroscientists. At the same time, they were negotiating resources and facilities that would allow IBRO to continue to grow and develop. UNESCO offered to settle IBRO in Paris, providing an office and budget. …
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".