Publication of Abstracts Presented at Annual American Contact Dermatitis Society Meetings
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical meetings provide a forum for the open discussion and sharing of new information for attendees. Peer-reviewed publication provides greater distribution of vetted information. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the publication of presentations from annual American Contact Dermatitis Society meetings. METHODS: Abstracts presented at the 2000, 2003, and 2006 American Contact Dermatitis Society meetings were identified. By keywords and author names, PubMed was searched for published papers corresponding to the work presented at these annual meetings. Matches were confirmed by comparing the content of the abstracts with the fully published articles. RESULTS: Of 115 presented abstracts, 55% resulted in the publication of an article by November 2009; 5% of abstracts had been published prior to presentation. Time to publication was 0.25 to 6.0 years. Mean time to publication was 1.8 years. CONCLUSIONS: Over one-half of all American Contact Dermatitis Society presentations resulted in the publication of an original article. Most were published within 2 years. The great majority of abstracts were published in Dermatitis (formerly the American Journal of Contact Dermatitis).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it