Golden Jubilee 50th volume of the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I am most grateful to the Editor in Chief of the JOGR journal for requesting me to review the past of the Asia Oceania Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AOFOG) in the Golden Jubilee issue of the journal.AOFOG is a regional organization dedicated to advancing the field of obstetrics and gynecology and developing interaction and harmony among the member societies.Founded in 1957, AOFOG aims to promote and improve women's health care across Asia and Oceania through education, research, and professional collaboration.AOFOG comprises member societies from various countries in the Asia and Oceania region, currently numbering 23, making it a diverse and influential organization in the field of women's health. BEGINNINGS AND HISTORY OF THE AOFOGIt was in 1954 in Geneva the idea of forming the Asia Oceania Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology as the Asian Division of the International Federation of Gynecology & Obstetrics was conceived.But it was only in 1957 at the inaugural meeting held in Tokyo, it was decided that the organization should be established as the Asian Federation of Obstetrics & Gynecology, i.e., as an autonomous body that would seek affiliation, with the International Federation of Gynecology & Obstetrics at a later stage.This meeting was convened by Dr. H. de Watteville (Switzerland), Dr. Ayesa (Philippines), and Dr. Hideo Yagi (Japan).Dr. Yagi was elected as Chairman.The membership was opened to Asian countries and Australia and New Zealand joined as associate members in 1959.Under the auspices of the Philippines Obstetrical & Gynecological Society Inc, the secretariat was established in Manila.Dr. Jose Villanueva was elected as the Secretary-General.Then in 1979, at the 13th General Assembly held in Tokyo, a new constitution initiated in Bangkok was adopted.The officers at this important meeting included President
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.097 | 0.047 |
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".