A National Concept Dictionary
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Overall objectives or goalMost of the organizations that use population administrative data for research purposes have internal repository of validated definitions and algorithms of their own. Many of these concepts and definitions are applicable or at least adaptable to other organizations and jurisdictions. A comprehensive National (and potentially International) Concept Dictionary could help investigators to carry out methodologically sound work using consistent and validated algorithms using a shared pool of knowledge and resources.
 The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) in Ontario, Canada has recently modernized its internal Concept Dictionary by adopting standard templates based on the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy (MCHP) Concept Dictionary, reviewing and updating existing content and tagging the concept entries with appropriate MeSH terms and data sources, and adding standard computer code (e.g., SAS coding) where appropriate. A SharePoint® web-based application has been developed to provide advanced tagging, searching and browsing features.
 We envision a wiki-based Concept Dictionary hosted on a cloud-based environment with very granular access controls to provide enough flexibility for each participating organization to control their own content. This means each organization will be able to decide on how to share their own concepts (or part of them) with the public or internal users.
 All content will be tagged with MeSH terms and as well with the organization’s name that initially posts each entry. Other organizations which find the same concept applicable to their own use can tag the same entry with their organization name or refer to a secondary adapted entry if adaptation to fit their data and methodologies is required.
 The Search feature will allow refining the search criteria by MeSH terms, data sources, and also organization/jurisdiction name.
 Multiple layers of access controls will allow each organization to have their own groups of users with different standard privileges such as Local Administrators, Authors and Approvers (or Publishers).
 The Approver (Publisher) users within each organization can publish each entry for internal or public view. This way, for example, a definition/algorithm can be viewable only within the organization until the validation process is complete, and then the entry can be made publically available, while some sections, such as computer code, can remain restricted to the organization.
 We will discuss challenges in developing and maintaining such a platform including the costs, governance, intellectual property rights, copyrights and liabilities for the participating organizations.
 The intended output or outcomeWe aim to use this opportunity to form a working group from the interested organizations that are ready to participate and commit in developing this collaborative platform. After the conference, there will be follow up sessions with the members of the working group to plan and develop the online application.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».