MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126594197 · doi:10.1007/s12079-014-0254-6

The Creation of the Canadian Connective Tissue Conference (CCTC): Twenty Years on

2014· article· en· W2126594197 on OpenAlexaffabout
A. Robin Poole

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Communication and Signaling · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnective tissue disorders research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConnective tissueFamily medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background When I arrived in Canada in 1977 to establish and direct the Joint Diseases Laboratory at the Shriners Hospital, McGill University, I came from a strong background in connective tissue research in Britain. Originally, in the 1960s, we had national Collagen,Mucopolysaccharide and the Bone and Tooth interest groups that each met regularly and separately. Eventually, the first two groups merged to form the British Society for Matrix Biology. This was and continues to be a very important society as it provides a common meeting ground for students and scientists interested in connective tissue research where progress is shared and collaborations are forged and new training and job opportunities explored. But on arrival in Canada there was very little research in this fundamentally important area. Tony Melchers MRC group in periodontal physiology, that included Jaro Sodek, based in Toronto, was the only group of its kind at that time. There were researchers working on small soft tissue proteoglycans, in Edmonton, Alberta, namely Paul Scott and Carl Pearson; C.P Leblond and his colleagues at McGill who had contributed so much to our understanding of connective tissues and developmental biology, their work inspiring us all. Michel van der Rest was working on collagen in the adjacent Genetics Laboratory at the Shriners Hospital. Dick Cruess, chair of orthopaedics at McGill and Chief Surgeon at Shriners Hospital, who had invited me to start a group at the Shriners Hospital, and his colleague Nelson Mitchell, both based at the Royal Victoria Hospital, were involved in research on joint tissues. They were excellent early role models for the surgeon/ scientist. A number of arthritis researchers were scattered across Canada, mainly with interests in inflammatory arthritis. Connective tissues were never mentioned. Following my arrival, my contacts were mainly with Tony Melcher’s group and laboratories in the USA where there already existed a very strong community of outstanding connective tissue researchers, especially those working on cartilage. These included Larry Rosenberg in NewYork, who gave up orthopaedics to pursue his passion-research on proteoglycans, and Vince Hascall at NIH (proteoglycans) and David Howell and Fred Woessner in Miami (proteases and proteoglycans). Meanwhile Peter Roughley (proteoglycans), John Mort and Anneliese Recklies (proteases) and Elaine Golds (inflammation/cytokines) had joined me in Montreal. Interest in connective tissues had grown progressively in Toronto, with Ken Pritzker working on osteoarthritis, the arrival of Marc Grynpas (bone) from Boston and Rita Kandel (cartilage). Meanwhile, in the early 1980s, Cy Frank, a young orthopaedic surgeon, also with a passion for research, had established a research program in Calgary that would involve orthopaedics, rheumatology, cartilage, tendon, ligament, proteases and bioengineering. By the beginning of the 1990s, Canada had many connective researchers. But they rarely met. Our main meetings were south of the border, such as the Orthopaedic Research Society, or in Europe. There were no opportunities for Canadian scientists and young researchers to meet on a regular basis, and for trainees to seek guidance and explore further training and job opportunities in Canada. I knew of many young researchers moving to the states, often never to return, often because of the lack of a Canadian meeting place.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell Communication and SignalingSame topicConnective tissue disorders researchFrench-language works237,207