Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It is a distinct honor to be able to address veterinarians in Canada as the president of the CVMA for 2012–2013. I applaud the job that Dr. Lloyd Keddie and others before him have done to guide this organization to where it is today. There are many issues that the CVMA will need to face in the coming years and because of previous leadership the Association is well poised to meet these issues head-on. I hope the broad experiences and skills developed during my life journey can be applied so that I can continue their fine work. I would like to start by taking a look at how the CVMA communicates to veterinarians in Canada. As a 50-something male, it is obvious that I do not fit the up-and-coming demographic of our organization. I hope I can develop a dialogue with as many of you as possible to make sure the needs of this organization are being met. Being able to communicate is of the utmost importance to be effective as a veterinarian. Good communication is vital to the wellbeing of patients. It is no different in an institutional setting wherein communication is vital to the success of day-today operations. The same is true in applying communications strategies to the CVMA. The definition of communication as it is applied to organizations is complex. Using the internet and “googling” “organizational communications” you receive over 18 million hits. At the risk of oversimplifying, any organization needs to communicate its issues, intentions and happenings to its members and likewise, its members need to be engaged by providing the feedback and direction needed for continued updates on those issues, intentions and happenings. This constant feedback loop is important for an effective organization. Now let’s look at the CVMA. How are we doing? In this day and age of multiple lines of communication and social media, there should be no excuse for dropping the ball. I certainly realize that we as veterinarians, no matter what field we are in, are flooded with all types of communication messages from a wide variety of sources. This creates a huge competition for our time and attention; messages must be short, simple, pertinent and timely. Listed below are some of the ways the CVMA communicates with members. CVMA Council members bring knowledge back to the provinces; they are the direct link between the provinces, colleges and students and the CVMA Council. CVMA members are encouraged to provide Council members with their views on current issues so that member feedback can be brought back to the Council table. The Canadian Veterinary Journal provides news items, annual reports and editorials. I encourage you to read and provide comments. At the time of writing, I have just received the June issue and am looking at the wealth of information pertaining to many of the major issues facing veterinarians today — publishing, ethics, euthanasia, antimicrobial resistance, zoonotic disease, and veterinary employment to name a few, in addition to news from the CVMA Council meeting in March and a look ahead at the CVMA convention. Online from 339 is the CVMA e-newsletter that comes to your inbox; a timely look at pertinent happenings at the CVMA and the veterinary profession. The CVMA Web site (www.canadianveterinarians.net) provides much information about the CVMA and the profession. The members section has areas where you can comment on draft position statements as they are released by the National Issues and Animal Welfare Committees. Feedback on any issues can always be directed to the office (gro.vmca-amvc@nimda). The CVMA’s social media Facebook (CanadianVeterinary MedicalAssociation) and Twitter (@CanVetMedAssoc) — are updated daily. Although I do have Facebook and Twitter accounts, I will be the first to admit I do not use them to their full potential. Facebook pages are also maintained for the Students of the CVMA and the Emerging Leaders Program. The CVMA Annual Source Guide and Directory is an information/reference guide on the organizational structure, membership services, governance and committees, position statements, and includes a listing of Canadian veterinarians. These are just a few of the many ways the CVMA communicates to members and non-members through print, mail, and e-mail. How are we doing? I have had conversations with many people on this topic with answers from good to not so good. I would like to ask you for your opinion on how we can efficiently stay ahead in the communications game. To that end, I welcome any and all feedback to my personal e-mail (moc.tevyks@mij) and/or to my blog (www.skyvet.com). Phone discussions are always welcome. E-mail me and I will pass along my coordinates. I am very much looking forward to my year as president. We have many issues on the table, including discussion on the CVMA’s organizational structure. We need your input as we constantly strive at a national level to provide “One Voice” on national veterinary issues. Please help us by getting involved and providing feedback. Our door is always open for your comments!
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,024 | 0,097 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,026 | 0,017 |
| Communication savante | 0,037 | 0,036 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,016 | 0,031 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,038 | 0,019 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».