MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290518567 · doi:10.1155/2005/892058

Where are all the new antibiotics? The new antibiotic paradox

2005· article· en· W2290518567 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacillus and Francisella bacterial research
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntibioticsMedicineIntensive care medicineMicrobiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the beginning of the 20th century, illnesses caused by infectious agents ranked among the most common causes of death in North America and, indeed, worldwide. By the middle of the century, dramatic advances in the diagnosis, management and prevention of infectious diseases had occurred, and hopes were raised that many infectious diseases would be eliminated by the end of the 20th century. Much of this success in the management of infectious diseases was related to a continuous new armamentarium of antibiotics. The discovery of penicillin by Fleming in 1928 followed by the discovery and clinical use of sulphonamides in the 1930s heralded the age of modern antibiotherapy (1,2). Penicillin came into widespread use during the early 1940s. By the 1950s, the ′golden era′ of antibiotic development and use was well underway, and multiple new classes of antibiotics were introduced over the next two decades (Table 1) (3).

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.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.228 · 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