Bibliographic record
Abstract
This month’s contribution to our series of Historical Perspectives is a slight departure from our standard format. Instead of focusing on a seminal paper or important topic in the development of neonatology, Robert Usher, MD, provides a personal view of the evolution of neonatology during the past half century or so. Dr Usher is one of the true pioneers in North American neonatology who has made an enormous contribution to neonatal/perinatal medicine, not only in Quebec, but also in many other parts of the world (recognized by his receipt of the Apgar Award in the year 2000). His contributions are diverse, but, as noted in the following section, started with his evaluation of the metabolic component of the respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). As a pediatric resident, I learned about the “Usher regime” for managing neonates who had RDS using continuous intravenous glucose and bicarbonate supplementation. A visiting professor agreed that Dr Usher’s results were impressive, but expressed the opinion that it might be the selfless devotion of Dr Usher to his patients rather than the regime itself that produced these good results. Almost certainly, it was a combination of the two. As a fellow in neonatology, my research centered on the role of placental transfusion and its effect on circulating blood volume and hematocrit. This was an area previously studied by Dr Usher both with Professor John Lind at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm (1)(2) and on his return to Montreal. (3) The role of placental transfusion in preventing RDS was being postulated at that time, and Dr Usher and colleagues later provided support for this hypothesis. (4) I made another connection with Dr Usher’s work when I later became intrigued with observations he made with Kenneth Scott on bone development in term infants born with intrauterine …
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.022 |
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".