620 2001 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Consensus Conference on Cardiac Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alexis Carrell, having perfected techniques of vascular anastomosis, published a report on the successful heterotopic heart transplantation in the dog in 1905 (1). It awaited a better understanding of transplantation biology, forged by Medawar and others in the 1940s, and the development of successful immunosuppressive regimens in renal transplantation in the 1950s for the stage to be set for successful cardiac transplantation. Shumway established a research program in transplantation at Stanford University and published a report with Lower of the first orthotopic canine transplant, using a biatrial anastomotic technique that would be established as the standard approach (2). In 1966, Barnard, a fellow trainee with Shumway at The University of Minnesota in the 1950s, performed the first successful human cardiac transplant at Cape Town, South Africa. There was widespread enthusiasm for the
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 | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.008 |
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".