Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is my fourth editorial letter to you in 2011, since being elected as Editor-in-Chief of International Surgery by the governance of the International College of Surgeons in late 2010.In my initial personal letter to you in the first quarter issue of International Surgery, I emphasized that we have the highest goals for our Journal and that we have much work to do in this reference. Clearly, I requested then, and repeat here, that I and my team need all of your enthusiastic, dedicated support to accomplish the lofty goals that we so rightly have set for International Surgery. In the second quarter issue, I emphasized the importance of peer review, which leads to overall quality improvement and our eventual achievement of our goals. In the third quarter issue, I addressed the analysis and plans being developed to electronically distribute International Surgery to all Fellows of the International College of Surgeons, and to all institutional subscribers, by electronic means only, beginning in 2012. In all of these communications, I have requested your questions and thoughts, as we value you, our readers, very highly.I am delighted to report to you that the International College of Surgeons governance formally approved, last month, the implementation of our plans for electronic publishing and electronic distribution of International Surgery beginning in 2012. This means, in brief, that every dues paying Fellow in the International College of Surgeons will receive every issue of International Surgery without a separate assessment of fees in payment for receiving International Surgery.While the case has already been made for implementing the above actions, it might be worthwhile to briefly communicate what is happening in our segment of the scientific/medical publishing industry. A review of the major seventeen general surgery titles, with impact factors (reported in the Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports), indicates that sixteen of the these titles are available in full online text to their readers. Clearly, given the decisions taken by the ICS governance, International Surgery may now be included in this group of leading surgery publications.The International College of Surgeons has the vision of improving the lives of patients through the education and development of the field of surgery in over 100 countries of the world where the International College of Surgeons has member Fellows. Our education, communications, and leadership missions will be significantly enhanced. For those persons conducting research and writing research papers, our electronic publishing system will serve them well. Our Journal, International Surgery, via online electronic publishing, will increasingly serve as the key modality to fulfill our vision and missions, as the College progresses into the future. Online publishing allows us to provide more value to our Fellows per dollar expended, and will greatly expand our Journal audience.We are also very pleased that International Surgery will continue to provide the opportunity to establish and enhance professional relationships, and provide the opportunity for every reader and Fellow to enhance their professional identity and responsibility.We look forward to implementing these exciting plans in 2012.Thank you.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".