Bibliographic record
Abstract
In perusing the current literature with which this journal is concerned, we note that an ever increasing number of its articles deals with problems pertaining to research on ''stress" and the so-called "adaptive hormones" (ACTH, STH, corticoids, adrenergic substances, etc.).We are writing you because, in our opinion, the success of research in this complex and rapidly developing field largely depends upon the prompt availability and evaluation of relevant publications, a task for which we should like to solicit the assistance of your readers.In 1950, our Institute has initiated the publication of a series of reference volumes entitled "Annual Reports on Stress" (Acta Medical Publishers, Montreal) in which the entire current world literature is surveyed every year (usually between 2000 and 4000 publications).Up to now, wc had to compile the pertinent litera ture partly from medical periodicals, monographs, abstract journals and partly from reprints sent to us by the authors themselves.Of all these, reprints proved to be the best source of data which we felt deserved prompt attention in our annual reports.Hence, in the past, we have sent out several thousand individual reprint requests to authors of whom we knew that they are currently engaged in research on stress and allied topics.Even this procedure did not give us the wide coverage which would be desirable, because it is materially impossible to contact all these authors individually and it often takes too much time to get the requested reprints.It is evident that in order to insure prompt inclusion of publications in the annual reports, these surveys must develop into a cooperative effort between the authors of original papers and the reviewers.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.256 | 0.148 |
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".