MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236622071 · doi:10.1210/er.2005-9999

From the Editor-in-Chief

2005· article· en· W4236622071 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
E. Brad Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueEndocrine Reviews · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEditor in chiefMedicineHistoryManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The publication Recent Progress in Hormone Research has a distinguished place in the development of endocrinology in the United States. The Hormone Conference of the A.A.A.S. originally met on Gibson Island, in the Chesapeake Bay. In 1944, the venue was moved to Mont Tremblant, in the Laurentian Mountains near Montreal, Canada. There was a strong consensus after that first Laurentian meeting to publish the texts of the presentations, and the result was the first volume of Recent Progress of Hormone Research, edited by Gregory Pincus and published in book form by Academic Press. Pincus was the distinguished Director of the Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research, in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts. Many contributions to endocrinological research came from the scientists there. From that first meeting in 1944, the Laurentian Hormone Conference (or the Laurentian meeting, as it came to be called) became the place to present and hear the best in hormone research. Speakers at the conference tended to be people who had completed an extensive body of work. Consequently, the series of RPHR books contains many summations of important milestones in our field. Following Pincus, E. B. Astwood became the editor of RPHR; then from 1975 to 1986, Roy O. Greep took over the editorship of the series, and from 1987 through 1989 it was edited by James H. Clark. One interesting feature of the RPHR series was that the questions and answers after each talk were published. These often add considerably to one’s understanding of the scientific issues of the time and sometimes give interesting glimpses of the personalities involved. As years went by, the popularity of the Laurentian meeting began to wane, supplanted by other conferences such as the Gordon Conference on Hormone Action. Eventually, a point was reached at which the meeting was no longer sustainable, but, because of its significance to endocrine history and because of the continued popularity of the RPHR series, The Endocrine Society took over the institution. C. Wayne Bardin assumed the editorial duties, and the RPHR meetings were held at a variety of venues, following the original format. Subsequently, P. Michael Conn organized the meetings and edited the series for the Endocrine Society. But again, meeting attendance sagged, and a decision was made to publish the volumes as compendia of invited papers. This was successfully carried out for several years under the editorship of our current Society President, Tony Means, with assistance from the Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor of Endocrine Reviews. Publication of the book series concluded in 2004, with volume 59 of RPHR, but our Society did not want to let the important tradition and content of the series end. Because we at Endocrine Reviews already had been involved in editing and overseeing its content, the Publications Committee of The Endocrine Society decided to continue the publication of RPHR as an annual special issue of Endocrine Reviews. This issue of Endocrine Reviews is the first in the new format, continuing the RPHR tradition of selecting as authors representatives of labs that have a long history in working on their subject. Thus, you will see that the articles present primarily the work of the contributor’s laboratory, placed in the context of the general field. They therefore differ from the usual Endocrine Reviews comprehensive review manuscripts and offer the unique perspectives that only individuals personally involved with the work can give. This special RPHR issue is thematic, with papers chosen this year to emphasize the translation of basic research in hormone action to applications in therapy, diagnosis, or prognosis of disease. Alas, our present format no longer allows the immediate follow-up of each article with a ‘Q and A‘ session that can be published along with the papers, but our readers should feel free to communicate with the authors to request clarification on points raised in the published content. We hope that, in this new context, RPHR will continue to provide endocrinologists up-to-date accounts of important and exciting developments in our field of science for years to come.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1970.202

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndocrine ReviewsSame topicMedical History and InnovationsFrench-language works237,207