Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forty years ago, British investigators developed the hypothesis that recurrent bronchial infections were the reason that some smokers developed progressive airways obstruction and other did not 1. The classical studies of Fletcher et al. 2 were designed to test this proposition. They carried out a prospective study of working males, noting the frequency of respiratory infections, sputum quantity and quality, and rate of loss of lung function in the form of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). They found that chronic cough and sputum production, and recurrent respiratory infections did not relate to lung function decline. They concluded that the chronic bronchitis syndrome (cough, sputum and episodes of acute bronchitis) was an epiphenomenon in so far as the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was concerned; both chronic bronchitis and COPD were caused by smoking, but the two were not related. This made sense, since chronic bronchitis symptoms largely reflected pathology in major conducting airways, and airways obstruction was related to lesions in small airways and the lung parenchyma. This view of the pathogenesis of COPD was essentially unchallenged for many years, in a large part because it was hard to do a better study that that of …
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".