Notice bibliographique
Résumé
An increasing number of Canadians are concerned about how the COVID-19 crisis was handled by our governments and institutions. We are alarmed by the serious consequences of their decisions and, at times, their apparent indifference to the costs. Those consequences include tragic impacts on the personal lives of many, violations of constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms in the name of health security, and economic impacts of lockdown measures, which subjected millions of Canadians to business closures, loss of income, and unemployment.Canadians are asking many questions: Were the measures taken by governments in Canada appropriate to the perceived threat? Were they based on sufficient clinical and statistical evidence? Were they suitably focused? How effective were they? Were there any conflicts of interest at play? Was there enough emphasis on prevention and early treatment? On informed consent? Was sufficient debate permitted? In attempting to prevent COVID-19, what other maladies were we ignoring or fostering? Did the public health interventions, such as mandatory vaccinations, cause more harm than good?These concerns have given rise to a growing demand for an Independent National Inquiry into the management of the COVID-19 crisis in Canada. To encourage and inform such an inquiry, from June 22nd – 24th 2022, the Canadian Covid Care Alliance, in partnership with the Canadian Adverse Event Reporting System (CAERS), Fearless Canada, United Healthcare Workers of Ontario and the Frontier Centre For Public Policy among others, sponsored a cross-country live streamed event moderated by a diverse panel of experts to:Hear testimony illustrating the harms that have resulted from government policies implemented to cope with the COVID-19 outbreak;Receive scientific, medical, and legal testimony as to alternative approaches that were ignored - or even condemned - which might have been pursued;Generate recommendations to ensure that Canadians never again experience the degree of loss, trauma and disruption caused by the official response to COVID-19.A Citizens’ Hearing consists of testimonies challenging the official responses of Canada’s federal and regional governments and recommendations for better handling the next public health crisis, should one of such a scale occur again.Canada’s response to COVID-19 has been far from perfect. We can and should learn from our mistakes. The landscape of this enormous challenge has been and is constantly changing. A Citizens’ Hearing aims to contribute to a national conversation of truth and understanding that might lead us to a new resilience and emergency preparedness. To face the next health crisis, we must change the narrative from one of fear and reaction to one of confidence in a properly managed, proactive and nuanced emergency management process that reacts to real world data, and keeps dialogue and consultation with a cross-section of stakeholders open and transparent.
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 | 0,016 | 0,046 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,070 | 0,018 |
| Communication savante | 0,022 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,008 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,016 | 0,022 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,001 |
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 ».