Bibliographic record
Abstract
IT’S CLEAR FROM second-quarter results that major drugmakers continue to have a tough time growing. U.S. firms looked particularly stagnant, with few companies managing to eke out improved sales and earnings. Their European counterparts fared better, helped by diversified portfolios that include vaccines. In general, European companies are poised to benefit as government agencies place huge orders for vaccines and antivirals in preparation for a swine flu pandemic. Overall, many big pharma companies are struggling to reinvigorate product sales, although profits continue to improve because of deep cost-cutting measures. Overall second-quarter sales for the 13 drug companies tracked by C&EN were down 0.2% from the year-earlier period, and earnings increased by 5.4%. The group’s average profit margin for the quarter was 24.1%, compared with 22.8% in the second quarter of 2008. For the first half of the year, sales improved 0.2%, and earnings increased 3.9%. For U.S. companies, second-quarter results looked an awful lot ...
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.446 | 0.332 |
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".