Investigations with interinstitutional participations, a significant milestone of the International SOBRADPEC Congress and Translational Research Forum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 14th version of the International SOBRADPEC Congress and Translational Research Forum deals with the topic of translational research, with important emphasis on the themes involved, which are extremely opportune and timely. The response of the Brazilian academic community exceeded expectations to such an extent that Professor Saul Goldenberg decided to publish three supplements of Acta Cirurgica Brasileira covering a total of 38 full papers enrolled in the Congress. These studies originated from practically all regions of Brazil, with a predominance of the Southeast, Northeast and South, as shown in Figure 1. We should also point out the presence of participations from Canada and France. This geographic coverage clearly shows the stage of development of clinical, experimental and especially translational research in our country, with bilateral international ramifications. The success of this congress reflects the success of Brazilian experimental surgery which, in fact is inseparable from clinical and translational research. When dealing with medicine in general or with surgery in particular, with translational characteristics from bench to bed and vice versa, we can see the importance of the concepts of basic research in the daily work of surgeons. Indeed, regarding the questions and ideas existing in the mind of academic surgeons and the application of knowledge to the clinical-surgical environment, the surgeon relies on his research knowledge for clinical application.
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 | 0.033 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".