Bibliographic record
Abstract
A s the countdown begins, with less than 24 months before the opening ceremonies of the World Congress of Gastroenterology, let us reflect upon the important contributions that volunteers make to such an activity.It was my good fortune to be in Calgary at the 1988 Olympics and to be involved, albeit in a very minor role, in the event.Soon Vancouver will host the games, and once again it will be for the most part a volunteer-organized event.That is how we do things in Canada.For gastroenterologists, the next opportunity to play a role in another world-class event will be the World Congress of Gastroenterology in 2005.At the core of the organization is a group of volunteers, ably assisted by a small administrative staff.This group has already invested a great deal of time and effort to organize the best World Congress of Gastroenterology ever.As I grow older (I will be 55 this year), I have come to realize how precious time is.You cannot manufacture time, you cannot recycle it, and you make choices every time you allocate it.Members of the Organizing Committee believe that the Congress is so important, they have taken time away from administrative, research, practice and personal activities.So why does it seem that the same people show up on the Organizing Committee year after year?I think it is the same as in professional football and hockey, where coaches seem to rotate from one team to another.There appears to be only a small cadre of individuals with the chutzpah to be able to manage a professional team or organize an international meeting.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".