Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Veterinary Officers Council (IVOC) held its 5th meeting in Chicago on May 9 and 10, 2003. The United States, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (as observer) were represented by the president and executive director of their respective veterinary associations. The purpose of the IVOC is to promote dialogue and collaboration among the chief elected and chief executive officers of a small number of national veterinary associations with a view to harmonizing policies and optimizing resources. The IVOC does this through the following means: Exchanging information on an ongoing basis on policies and programs; Complementing and/or sharing resources on cross-border issues; When appropriate, taking common positions or action on international matters, including matters relating to the policies and operations of international veterinary organizations. The extensive agenda of this past meeting included discussions on veterinary education, food safety, economics of the profession, animal welfare, membership development and retention, quality assurance programs managed by associations, and outcomes assessment of various association member programs. Holding the meeting in Chicago allowed the participants to be introduced to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) headquarters and its staff, in Schaumburg. The size of the IVOC member organizations varies greatly (for example, New Zealand has less than 2000 members, while the United States has approximately 70 000 members and a staff of about 117). Many of the issues, however, are similar. This meeting provided a wealth of information and initiated many ideas for further pursuit. (by Jost am Rhyn, Executive Director, CVMA)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.035 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".