From the Editors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are honored to present the 25th Annual edition of The Medicine Forum, carrying forth a quarter-century tradition of scholarly work produced by faculty, residents, and students -- proudly shared with the Jefferson community and beyond. The Medicine Forum embodies the collective voice and spirit of our residency, serving as a vibrant platform for scholarly and artistic expression, and showcasing the remarkable talents and diverse perspectives of our program’s faculty, residents, and students. Throughout the years, The Medicine Forum has evolved alongside our program, adapting to the changing interests and passions of each new cohort of residents. It serves not only as a platform for scientific inquiry but also as a canvas for exploring the humanities and celebrating creativity. This 25th edition contains a mosaic of articles, essays, and artwork, each reflecting the unique experiences and insights of our resident community. Indeed, we are proud to present a reinvigorated humanities section, as medicine increasingly becomes technologized and digitized, threatening to alienate physicians from their patients -- and each other. We express our most profound gratitude to the Department of Medicine leadership and administration, our faculty mentor Dr. Dagan Coppock, our editor and printer Timothy Flanagan, the many subspecialty fellows and attendings that graciously offered or agreed to peer review submissions, and, of course, the talented and dedicated faculty, residents, and students who submitted pieces for consideration. To our supporters, thank you for making his journal possible. And finally, to our readers, thank you for partaking in the 25th edition of The Medicine Forum.
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.293 | 0.302 |
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".