MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W160005872

Why CVMA membership? — A comment

2011· article· en· W160005872 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michaël J.B. van Baar

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicVeterinary Practice and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNothingValue (mathematics)Animal welfarePublic relationsWelfareMedicinePsychologyLawPolitical scienceComputer sciencePhilosophyEpistemology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dear Sir, I sometimes encounter Canadian veterinarians who don’t quite see the value of being a CVMA member. They often ask: “What’s in it for me?” In his President’s message of January 2011 (Can Vet J 2011; 52:9–12), Dr. Doug Roberts did an excellent job outlining the tangible and, more important in my view, intangible benefits of being a CVMA member. The message is clear — In addition to making significant contributions to animal and human health and welfare, the CVMA represents, promotes, and defends the interests of the profession as a whole. Without the CVMA and its support of and by all Canadian veterinarians, the answer to the question “What’s in it for me?” will be painfully obvious when there’s nothing in it for anyone.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.446
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.427
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.008 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed CentralSame topicVeterinary Practice and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207