CAEP/ACMU 2014 Scientific Abstracts, May 31 to June 4, 2014, Ottawa, Ontario
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Research in emergency medicine addresses issues that affect all aspects of patient care, including clinical decision rules, wait times, overcrowding, improved practice guidelines based on best evidence, and new applications for diagnostic tools.Fostering a rich research environment requires education, funding, and a rigorous peer-review process.The Research Committee is pleased to have continued its support of these efforts.Research-based abstracts are the core of the annual research competition, and this year, there was a record number of submissions for the CAEP 2014 Conference in Ottawa.We received abstracts from emergency medicine researchers from across Canada and internationally.The top ranking abstracts submitted by CAEP members were afforded the opportunity to present at the plenary session, and the best resident, pediatric, and medical student abstracts were awarded financially to subsidize conference travel expenses.The promotion and dissemination of high-quality research, like that submitted to the CAEP 2014 Conference, is integral to the enhancement of Canadian emergency medicine research.Accompanying these customary research-based education abstracts, the Research Committee accepted education innovation abstracts.These abstracts highlight the novel ideas, methods, and materials developed by emergency medicine educators and focus on curricula, teaching methods, and assessment.The Research Committee has incorporated these innovation abstracts throughout the sessions, as lightning orals, moderated posters, and posters.As part of the Research Committee commitment to support emergency medicine researchers, five CAEP research grants were awarded for the best proposals submitted by medical students, residents, and junior investigators.These small grants are known to have successfully launched new projects and the careers of new emergency medicine researchers by providing funds at a pivotal point.The funding of these grants requires the support of generous members of our community, so remember to support the Research Committee.Although not sufficiently recognized, the work of the volunteer reviewers is critically important to the success of the Research Committee activities during the abstract and grant competitions.Each submission is thoroughly read, reviewed, and scored by at least three experienced reviewers.Those submitting grant proposals are supplied with detailed reviewer comments, providing valuable feedback for these junior investigators.The Research Committee would like to thank the reviewers for their hours of work and recognize their commitment to support emergency medicine research.Finally, CAEP is dedicated to supporting Canadian emergency medicine research and is looking forward to continuing these efforts to encourage new and established researchers.
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 | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,568 | 0,198 |
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 ».