Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over 700 presentations have been given at the meetings of the American Osler Society (AOS) since its inception in 1970. Fully half of these have treated various aspects of Osler's personal and professional life. Many have dealt with Osler's specific contributions to an array of medical specialties. Other national/international Osler Societies including the Osler Club of London and the Japan Osler Society have treated similar topics but in different proportions historically. As the societies have matured, the foci of their talks have broadened from Osler and more bio-medical historical topics to include more of the contemporary ethical, ideological and socioeconomic issues facing the medical profession. Osler himself tended to speak more frequently on such topics in his later life. For Oslerians, Osler has had such a profound influence upon the history of medicine that, at least for them, to study Osler is to study the history of medicine. A description of the culture of the AOS meetings is ventured.
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 | 0.017 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".