Will \u3cem\u3eYoungstown\u3c/em\u3e Survive?

The article examines the landmark United States Supreme Court case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, specifically in the context of the Symposium Proceedings accompanying this issue. The article traces the history of the case and its aftermath, exploring its role in later presidential powers cases before the Supreme Court. The article also discusses the relevance of the Steel Seizure case in the era of terrorism

Federal Judicial Selection

“The First Two Centuries”: The first panel explored the provisions that the drafters made in the United States Constitution for federal judicial selection and traced the two-century history of the selection process following the constitution\u27s adoption. The panel consisted of Charles Cooper, Esq. of Cooper & Kirk PLLC; Gary L. McDowell, Haynes Professor of Leadership Studies and Political Science at the University of Richmond’s Jepson School of Leadership Studies; and Ms. Maeva Marcus, of the United States Supreme Court Historical Society. Rodney A. Smolla, the George E. Allen Chair in Law, served as program coordinator and moderator. “Modern Federal Judicial Selection”: The second panel explored modern federal judicial selection, tracing the selection process over the last two decades and analyzing how it has grown increasingly contentious. The panel consisted of Theresa M. Beiner, of the William H. Bowen School of Law at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock; Sheldon Goldman, Department of Political Science University of Massachusetts; Judge Edith Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; and William P. Marshall, the Kenan Professor of Law University of North Carolina School of Law. Carl W. Tobias, Williams Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law, served as moderator. “The Prospects of Reform”: The third panel explored numerous suggestions for remedying or ameliorating the difficulties that pervade modern federal judicial selection and the prospects for these measures\u27 success. The panel consisted of Terry Eastland, Publisher of The Weekly Standard; Michael Gerhardt, Hanson Professor of Law at the Marshall-Wythe School of Law, College of William and Mary; and Sanford V. Levinson, The W. St. John Garwood Centennial Chair in Law and Professor of Government at the University of Texas School of Law. Gary L. McDowell, the Haynes Professor of Leadership Studies and Political Science at the University of Richmond’s Jepson School of Leadership Studies, served as moderator

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe