MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094671226 · doi:10.1002/clc.20055

Robert Earl Beamish

2007· article· en· W2094671226 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Charles G. Roland, W. Bruce Fye

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cardiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Innovations
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityOntario Clinical Oncology Group
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsMedicineHistory of medicineArt historyGerontologyClassicsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robert Beamish (1916-2001) was one of the pioneers of Canadian cardiology whose influence extended well beyond the borders of that country.Among his many contributions, he introduced cardiac catheterization in Winnipeg, was the founding and long-time editor of The Canadian Journal of Cardiology, and an influential leader of several medical organizations. 1 Beamish was born in the small town of Shoal Lake, Manitoba, on September 9, 1916.He received his B.A. from Brandon College (then affiliated with McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario) in 1937.He was awarded his M.D. in 1942 and a B.Sc. (Med.) two years later from the University of Manitoba Medical School.His affiliation with the university lasted more than 60 years, extending into the twenty-first century.Beamish credited James D. Adamson, Professor of Medicine at the University of Manitoba, with stimulating his interest in cardiovascular disease during his internship and residency.Adamson encouraged Beamish to investigate the usefulness of thiocyanates in treating hypertension.This research led to his first scientific publication.2 After serving in the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps from 1944 to 1946, Beamish returned to Winnipeg and entered practice with two prominent internists.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.024

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical CardiologySame topicMedical History and InnovationsFrench-language works237,207