MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

High Attendance at This Year's AACR Annual Meeting

2004· article· en· W2332333781 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael J. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology Times · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttendanceLibrary scienceTheme (computing)MedicineGerontologyManagementPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ORLANDO—Attendance at the 95th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research was better than for any year in recent memory, except for 2002 in San Francisco, organizers said. Just under 14,000 people—13,948, to be exact—were registered to hear or view the approximately 5,700 presentations. In contrast, the 2002 meeting drew 15,403 attendees, and there were 12,205 people pre-registered for the 2003 Toronto meeting that was aborted because of the SARS scare. While that cancellation meant that 2003–2004 President Karen Antman, MD, had only nine months in office, it didn't interfere with planning for the Orlando meeting, she said. “We had our first program committee meeting even before the Toronto meeting was canceled.” But sandwiching two conferences into nine months—the replacement meeting in Washington in July and then this year's in Orlando—meant considerable extra work for the AACR staff.Figure: Scenes from the Annual Meeting: (clockwise from top) AACR booth in the Exhibit area; AACR CEO Margaret Foti, PhD; President Lynn M. Matrisian, PhD (left) and 2003–04 President Karen Antman, MD; and Gregory M. Wahl, PhD, Program Chair.“It was really tougher for the staff than it was for us [the elected officers and committee chairs],” Dr. Antman said. The theme of this year's meeting was Information Integration for Innovation, and that's what registrants felt took place, said Program Chair Geoffrey M. Wahl, PhD, Professor of Genetics at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. “People have told me how excited they are because we tried to do integration of information. I think it has been a fabulous conference, but I'm biased.” 2004-2005 President Lynn McCormick Matrisian, PhD, of Vanderbilt University, said the conference showcased “a lot of cutting-edge science, as well as discussion of the way the future should go.” A challenge for the 2005 annual meeting (April 16 to 20 in Anaheim, CA) and for the Association in general, will be to involve the public more in the discussions, she said. “We need to find out how to translate our information into the type of information that the public is interested in. We did have a very successful Public Forum [held this year as it has for the last several years, on the first day of the meeting], but it's such a small percentage of the population that we reach. We still have a long way to go.”

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5120.446

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncology TimesSame topicHealthcare Systems and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207