Atlas of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 2nd edn, Volume 1. J. L. Cameron and C. Sandone (eds). 263 × 338 mm. Pp. 552. Illustrated. 2007. BC Decker: Hamilton, Ontario $249·95
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This text is written for the experienced surgeon and claims its surgical watercolour paintings as a unique selling point. The surgical authors are all from the Johns Hopkins stable, and very much tell the reader ‘how we do it’, without attempting a comprehensive review of surgical practice. The atlas will be of educational interest to hepatobiliary, pancreatic and oesophageal surgeons. Many will wish they also had Volume 2, particularly as gastric surgery is not included. The book offers an insight into surgical practice in the Johns Hopkins school, from which many of us will learn some useful lessons. Several of the operations described, such as resection of hepatic duct bifurcation for primary sclerosing cholangitis, or mesoatrial shunt for Budd–Chiari syndrome, would be seen only in the most subspecialized practice. Nevertheless, I very much enjoyed the accounts of these rather fabulous operations. The second edition has been updated and enhanced with sections on laparoscopic operations. However, I was disappointed that minimally invasive oesophagectomy was not covered. Another criticism is the needless repetition of techniques such as hepaticojejunostomy. Overall, this is a highly commendable textbook for interested gastrointestinal surgeons, the reading of which feels rather like a stroll through an art gallery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.213 | 0.132 |
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".