MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7073997484

William Stewart Halsted: A Lecture by Dr. Peter D. Olch

2006· article· en· W7073997484 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotonic Crystal and Fiber Optics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)BiographyQuarter (Canadian coin)CentennialPublishingFall of manSection (typography)Period (music)George (robot)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the fall of 1979, Dr. David C. Sabiston Jr., as Chairman of the Department of Surgery at Duke University, called a chief residents’ meeting to ask for suggestions regarding the upcoming Clarence E. Gardner History of Medicine Lecture (Dr. Gardner was the second Chairman of Surgery at Duke). Having just read MacCallum's biography of Halsted, I mentioned the topic of William Stewart Halsted, and Dr. Sabiston seemed interested. I subsequently learned that Dr. Peter D. Olch, Deputy Chief of the History of Medicine Division, National Library of Medicine, had been invited to give the lecture. Enthusiastic about the prospect, I obtained permission from Dr. Olch to tape his presentation and to copy his slides. It was a cold January day under clear Carolina skies when we accompanied Dr. Olch on the requisite tour of the Duke campus. We then escorted him to the packed lecture hall, and Dr. Sabiston gave his characteristically thorough introduction. Dr. Olch was physically and intellectually vigorous (Fig. 1) and delivered his address in a uniquely informative, even inspiring, manner. That evening, a dinner was given in Dr. Olch's honor, and the entire visit was quite remarkable. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Olch developed lymphoma, eventually lost a hard fight against the cancer, and never published this paper. Given Dr. Olch's extraordinary insight into Dr. Halsted's character, which was based on many years of assiduous study, it seemed appropriate to publish this work posthumously after a quarter century.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed CentralSame topicPhotonic Crystal and Fiber OpticsFrench-language works237,207