Transplantation: A Report of Progress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Editors of Transplantation are pleased to publish a special issue of the journal devoted to the XXIII International Congress of The Transplantation Society (TTS) held earlier this year in Vancouver. This issue includes the keynote speeches given during the Presidential Plenary Session, 2010 TTS Award Recipients and manuscripts submitted by authors of the abstracts that received the highest scores during abstract review that after peer review were accepted by the Editors for publication. Congratulations to all the TTS Award Recipients and authors whose work is published in this issue. This is an exceptional achievement. Transplantation aims to publish high-quality articles as rapidly as possible. The streamlined editorial process enables a first Editorial decision to be communicated to authors within 21 days of manuscript submission. The hard work and dedication of the Editorial Board in achieving this rapid response time for authors is highly valued by both the Editors and the publisher. To acknowledge the important contribution made by reviewers to the peer review process, the Editors of Transplantation have worked closely with TTS, a Continuing Medical Education provider, to enable Continuing Medical Education credits to be offered to each reviewer who returns a high-quality review of a manuscript submitted for consideration for publication in Transplantation. To make new findings available to the transplantation community as rapidly as possible, electronic publication ahead of print is a key feature of the new journal website http://journals.lww.com/transplantjournal. The website also provides powerpoint slide sets of the figures from each article, collections of topical articles published in Transplantation, and virtual journals for each specialist working in the field, covering kidney, pancreas/islet, liver, heart, and lung and hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. To enable the publication of detailed methodology, the Editors have agreed that detailed information for Materials and Methods will be included in the published journal as supplemental digital content (SDC). Authors are therefore requested to include a brief Methods section in their manuscript and to prepare a separate file, to be submitted for peer review at the same time as the manuscript that gives the detailed information. To ensure that references continue to appear in order, ie in the published journal and SDC, the Methods section has been relocated to appear after the Discussion section. The Editors hope that this new format will facilitate the use of SDC, expanding the amount of information that can be provided for each manuscript published in Transplantation. Transplantation is the official journal of TTS and is proud to provide the transplant community worldwide with current perspectives on the science and clinical practice of transplantation internationally. The Editors would like to express their thanks to those who contributed to this special issue of Transplantation dedicated to the XXIII International Congress of TTS and to all those who have played a key role in the successful year enjoyed by Transplantation.
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 | 0.030 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.018 |
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".