Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prevention, especially clinical prevention provided by family physicians, has developed and grown over the past 3 decades. Its profile among the general public has risen dramatically, and prevention issues are on the “radar screen” of many of our patients. Over the same time we have developed a richer understanding of what works and what does not, allowing us to enhance patient care and increase efficiency by focusing on those preventive strategies that most benefit our patients.1 For example, since 1994 the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care has identified more than 100 clinical preventive actions of benefit across all age groups; such actions as mammography for women age 50 to 69, routine measurement of blood pressure for adults, influenza vaccination of older adults, and immunizations for children have arguably become expected standards of care. Importantly, family physicians have embraced the value of prevention and health promotion and tried to incorporate effective preventive care into their practices.
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 | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.017 |
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".