MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401710514 · doi:10.1177/09677720241266311

Microbial culture collections: Stanley Morris Martin, the first international conference (Ottawa 1962), and beyond

2024· article· en· W4401710514 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jacalyn Duffin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Biography · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVibrio bacteria research studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperLibrary sciencePolitical scienceLawMedia studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Culture collections originated in the 19th century, but it was not until 1962 that the first international conference was held at the National Research Council in Ottawa, Canada. Microbes-like epidemics-know no borders. Collectors were concerned with public health as well as science. For the 1962 meeting, 266 scientists came from 25 countries. They recommended a special section for collections within the International Association of Microbiological Societies. By 1970, it became the World Federation of Culture Collections, which still coordinates collections worldwide. Canadian microbiologist Stanley Morris Martin (1920-2007) who had handled local arrangements for the Ottawa meeting became the inaugural president, serving from 1970 to 1976. Originally an expert on enzymes, Martin embraced his role within the international network and championed peaceful uses of microbes and the establishment of collections in developing countries. But after his retirement, he seemed to disappear. Drawing upon scientific contributions, newspapers, and interviews, this article explores the conference, its programme, challenges, and legacy. It also tracks the long-forgotten career of Stanley Martin.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.008
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical BiographySame topicVibrio bacteria research studiesFrench-language works237,207