Bibliographic record
Abstract
As this is the first issue of the CJNL for 2003, it's almost a requirement to reflect on the year gone by.By many accounts, 2002 will be known as the year of reports.The most influential report belongs to the Romanow Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada; the most pragmatic, the final report of the Canadian Nursing Advisory Committee; and the most flamboyant release, Senator Kirby's Final Report of Federal Role in Health Care.Each report conveyed a sense of urgency on the need for fundamental change.Recommending change is one matter; implementing change is a different story, especially in a system as cherished and complex as healthcare.These reports hold compelling calls to action, and moving into implementation will require courageous conversations and the establishment of new relationships and accountabilities.There is a role for each one of us in our place of work.What we talk about, with employees, with patients, physicians and profes-
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 | 0.012 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.015 |
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".