Peer-Reviewed Journal Publication of Abstracts Presented at an International Emergency Medicine Scientific Meeting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scientific presentations at professional organization meetings have long been recognized as a method of providing up-to-date and novel information to both the medical and scientific community. After abstract presentation at a medical conference, the subsequent publication rate of full-text articles is variable, and few studies have examined this topic with respect to international emergency medicine conferences. This study's goals were to determine the publication rate of articles resulting from abstracts presented at the 12th International Conference on Emergency Medicine 2008 in San Francisco, Calif, and to compare this with data from the previous International Conference on Emergency Medicine 2006 conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. We found a reduction in publication rate from 33.2% in 2006 to 22.8% in 2008 and that the host country furnished a greater proportion of the abstracts. It would be interesting to examine how these potential trends played out over more extended periods.
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 | 0.143 | 0.467 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.038 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.006 |
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".