Bibliographic record
Abstract
I was a research fellow in Dr. Clement Smith's group at the Boston Lying-in Hospital in 1955 and 1956, which was across the street from the Children's Hospital. These were separate worlds. We were studying “preemies,” usually “normal preemies,” trying to determine normal values for pulmonary function. Once a week we visited Children's for Grand Rounds, to keep in touch with our pediatric roots. In those days it was common for Montreal to send its best and brightest to Boston or New York City for some part of their clinical training. It was therefore no surprise to find that the Chief Resident was a young man from Canada, Peter Auld. He was articulate, tall, bright, handsome, and obviously a future academician. We thought he'd return to Canada one day. He stayed in Boston for 5 years, mostly “across the street” working with Abe Rudolph studying circulation in the neonatal period. It was an exciting time. The world of neonatology (a word not yet invented) was emerging and it was strictly an East Coast/Boston, NYC/Oxford Club. A cluster of people interested in newborn physiology, who all knew one another, (C. Smith, J. Bancroft, J. Dawes, Stan James, W. Tooley, N. Nelson, W. Silverman, R. Day, M. Avery, V. Apgar, T. Ope, J. Dancis, H. Reardon, M. Stahlman, A. Rudolph, T. O'Brien, M. Cornblath, L. Gluck, S. Segal, R. Usher, J. Sutherland) communicated, visited, and worked together. Note that West Coast neonatology did not yet exist in the 1960s! None of us realized that one day there would be over 5,000 “neonatologists” in the USA alone, and that what had been a small field would turn into a major pediatric subspecialty, indeed an industry, the engine that supports many academic departments. Peter returned to Montreal after 5 productive years in Boston (1955-60) and then 2 years later in 1962 returned to the New York Hospital where he established a true perinatal center where he has reigned for over 40 years. Congratulations, Peter, on a highly productive career. May you live happily ever after.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.146 | 0.045 |
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".