Bibliographic record
Abstract
BIOPHARMACEUTICAL AND DRUG discovery companies continued their upward momentum both in the fourth quarter of 2004 and for the full year. In fact, the biotech companies outperformed their bigger siblings, the major pharmaceutical firms (see page 18), in sales and earnings growth in both the quarter and the year. While drug company sales and earnings increased by 8.2% and 10.7%, respectively in the October-to-December period, total revenues at the 25 biotech firms surveyed by C&EN rose 20.0% to $9.61 billion. Earnings at the biotech companies rose 18.7% to a cumulative $1.49 billion. The same comparison was true for the full year, but even more so. The biotech sample's revenue growth for all of 2004 was 22.6%, to $34.5 billion, more than twice that of the major pharmaceutical firms' cumulative 9.0% sales increase. And biotech's 28.9% earnings increase to $6.31 billion was more than five times the increase seen at the drug companies. Because of the ...
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.135 | 0.079 |
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".