Notice bibliographique
Résumé
On 6 June 2003, as has become my habit, I glanced at the World Health Organization's global epidemic curve for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). With infection control procedures finally taking hold in China, the shape of the curve was moving downwards and approximating the bell shape so cleanly described in epidemiology textbooks. The relative brevity of the bell for the 21st century's first major epidemic can be attributed to an aspect of 21st century medicine that had never before been tested so singularly, and completely: multinational collaboration, real time epidemiological updates, and online medical publication all made possible through digital connections. The speed with which data, experience, successes, and failures were shared appears to have slowed the epidemic. The recent spate of online SARS offerings has provided more than graphs and data: it has also given us a SARS textbook. SARS Reference intends to summarise information on the SARS outbreak each month for the duration of the epidemic. The first edition, covering information available since the outbreak began in November 2002 and current as of 6 May 2003, was written over 14 days by a group of volunteers and posted at SARSreference.com on 8 May 2003. So far, it has been translated into Chinese and Spanish, and the editors promise to release copyright to individuals who are willing to translate it into other languages. They report that there is currently no sponsorship for the site, nor would any be accepted. SARS Reference is a comprehensive summary of what we know to date. It is well organised into nine chapters, from the epidemiology of outbreaks in different countries to SARS in children. Each is available in printable format, and extensively referenced. The strongest sections are those on virology and diagnostic testing. Sections on transmission/prevention and case definition rely heavily on recommendations from the US Centers for Disease Control and WHO, with some support from the published literature. Both for SARS medicine and for online publishing, this is an important step forward. Its greatest strengths are its comprehensive review of the literature, an abundance of links to authoritative internet sites, and refreshingly clear writing. Unfortunately, there is no mention of peer review and no assurance that the information offered is accurate enough to guide appropriate management of a group of SARS patients. Further, as evidence of varying quality accumulates, and changes from observational to experimental, the task of synthesising and summarising it will be less easy, and will require critical analysis that is not offered here. Clicking on WHO's website, I opened the epidemiological curve for Toronto, my home. It also showed a nice bell curve. Two of them, actually, and the second seemed not quite done. Apparently, there are lessons that this disease has yet to teach us, and for the time being, there seems no better record than SARSreference.com
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 | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,930 | 0,942 |
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; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».