MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1909021306 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.1170

L’AUC comme promoteur de la santé

2013· article· fr· W1909021306 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jerzy B. Gajewski

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsCanadian Urological Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T el que mentionn dans des bulletins de nouvelles antrieurs, l'Excutif de l'AUC s'est embarqu dans un plan stratgique quinquennal. L'un de ses objectifs est de dvelopper et de mettre en place un plan d'affaires de promoteur de la sant. La ralisation de cet objectif positionnerait l'AUC en tant que voix de toutes les questions urologiques au Canada Qu'est-ce que cela veut dire exactement? O l'AUC trouve-t-elle sa place dans tout cela? Une tude effectue en 2007 1 a dmontr que, parmi les rsidents en urologie, 68 % croient que le rle d'un promoteur de la sant est un rle important dans la formation en rsidence et dans l'exercice urologique.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.005

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicHealthcare Systems and Practices→French-language works237,207→