Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Part I (Can J Plast Surg 2000;8:25–29) established that standards of professional practice shift constantly. When a standard falls short of professional expectation, or when a physician becomes more concerned with financial gain than patient care, society needs the action of a reformer. Part II (Can J Plast Surg 2001;9:59–68) continued the study with the contribution of reformer John Hunter (1728–1793), followed with the contributions of seven other reformers, and concluded with Wilder Penfield (1891–1976). Part III extends this project through the greater part of the 20th century. Study Design Reformers were scientists who were selected because they conformed to the definition of ‘reformer’; namely, a person whose action restored, reshaped or changed the structure or ideology of medical practice. Results This survey demonstrated that the reforms were accomplished by scientists who possessed critical judgement and analytical qualities that enabled them to influence the direction of medical education and practice. Conclusion Reforms have been achieved through intuitive leaps, alterations of conventional practice, painstaking research and administrative restructuring.
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 | 0.069 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".