MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790610491 · doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000001760

Reflections on the Last 25 Years of the American Otological Society and Thoughts on its Future

2018· article· en· W2790610491 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. Bradley Welling, Robert K. Jackler

Bibliographic record

VenueOtology & Neurotology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEar Surgery and Otitis Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)MedicineSpeculationBeholdOtologyEngineering ethicsGlobeHistoryArt historySurgeryOphthalmologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To review contributions of the American Otological Society (AOS) over the most recent quarter century (1993-2018) and to comment on possible future evolution of the field during the quarter century to come. METHODS: Retrospective review of selected topics from the AOS transactions, distinguished lectureships over the past 25 years, and selective reflection by the authors. Speculation on potential advances of the next quarter century derived from emerging topics in the current literature and foreseeable trends in science and technology are also proffered for consideration (and possible future ridicule). RESULTS: Integration of multiple disciplines including bioengineering, medical imaging, genetics, molecular biology, physics, and evidence based medicine have substantially benefitted the practice of otology over the past quarter century. The impact of the contributions of members of the AOS in these developments cannot be over estimated. CONCLUSIONS: Further scientific advancement will certainly accelerate change in the practice of otologic surgery and medicine over the coming decade in ways that will be marvelous to behold.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.014
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0090.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.293 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOtology & NeurotologySame topicEar Surgery and Otitis MediaFrench-language works237,207