Bibliographic record
Abstract
Usually, I am not obsessive about terminology use in ophthalmology. Well, not unless the terminology involves ophthalmic viscosurgical devices.1 However, one of the most personally irritating nomenclature issues to arise in ophthalmology involves the naming of what should be called “biaxial phacoemulsification.” Traditionally, we have all performed coaxial phacoemulsification for years, as first taught to us by Kelman. When it appeared that separating irrigation from aspiration was going to work, new, lofty, meaningless terms sprouted forth like wild flowers in spring. The following are a few examples, with the reasons they are inappropriate: Phaconit (phaco using needle incision technology). We always used needle incision technology. It is simply a matter of the size of the needle. Microincision (or micro-) phaco. Our current coaxial phaco is micro compared to what we did before we had foldable IOLs, and undoubtedly future technology will make current microphaco seem macro. Micro is relative in this use, with no enduring standard, and therefore meaningless. Bimanual phaco. Well, I use both hands and both feet in all variations of phaco that I perform. Perhaps I should call my technique “quadrilimb phaco,” “quaddextrous phaco,” or some such thing. The point is that all these terms are meaningless, except that they may sound good, unless you think about it. None of them differentiates the procedure under discussion from coaxial phaco. However “biaxial phaco” clearly refers to the fundamental difference in the procedure separating it from coaxial phaco. Biaxial makes no specific reference to incision size, which undoubtedly changes over time; does not imply lack of dexterity of coaxial surgeons; and is not a mixed, obscure acronym. Biaxial is simply what is different from coaxial in biaxial phaco. The rest is left to innovators of the future. If your curiosity of nomenclature is still not fully satisfied, may I recommend Simon Winchester's The Professor and the Madman,2 a marvelous story of those who contributed most to the writing of the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, the eternal “bible” of English usage. The madman was a brilliant, most eccentric American. The rest you'll have to read for yourself. Steve A. Arshinoff MD, FRCSC Toronto, Ontario, Canada
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.016 |
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".