Canada's contribution to the American College of Surgeons: a centenary editorial for the Canadian Journal of Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One hundred years ago, a group of surgeons from the United States and Canada founded the American College of Surgeons (ACS). Its origin lies in its journal, which was started 8 years earlier. Annual clinical congresses designed to promote the journal attracted so many surgeons from North America that the need for a permanent organization to promote the practice of surgery was apparent. Franklin H. Martin, the pioneer of all these initiatives, should be remembered on this centenary as the hero of continuing medical education (CME) and advocacy in surgery. The ACS has remained true to his vision. It is the premier advocate of surgery and surgical patients in the United States and is the world’s principal source of CME materials. Martin’s clinical congress, which continues as the annual scientific meeting of the ACS, remains the most important meeting of surgeons. For Canada, the founding of the ACS was a milestone. Instead of turning to Britain for advanced surgical education, Canada would collaborate with its neighbour to develop all aspects of surgery at home. Anesthesia and asepsis had permitted the growth of surgery so that almost every operation performed today was attempted, if not perfected, by the end of the 19th century. Surgeons, however, were only distinguished from the general medical community by a presumed ability and a willingness to restrict their practices. Wealthy surgeons sought additional education in Europe, and a few came home with fellowships from a Royal College of Surgeons in Britain or Ireland. Canadian surgeons, often working in competitive solo practices, were hungry for CME and collegial support. When Martin solicited the attendees of the first 2 clinical congresses to join a new college of surgeons, 68 Canadians agreed and became founding members of the ACS
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".