Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is one of the oldest forms of medicine in the world. There has been a growing interest in TCM in Canada in terms of consumers and also among the research community. To cater for this interest, the Canadian Institute of Chinese Medicinal Research (CICMR) was established in 2004. Since its formation, CICMR has been organizing annual meetings. In 2008, the CICMR meeting, jointly organized with the Ontario Ginseng Innovation Research Centre, was held from October 16th to 19th, in London, Ontario, Canada. The meeting saw a number of participants and speakers from many countries who discussed TCM in a Canadian perspective. The talks and presentations focused on TCM practices in Asia and Canada; analytical techniques for unravelling the science behind TCM; basic and clinical research findings in the areas of cancer and cardiovascular diseases; safety and quality control issues; the regulatory and educational framework of TCM in Canada; and the latest findings in agricultural, chemical, and pharmacological research on ginseng from all over the world. The meeting successfully provided a platform for constructive discussions on TCM practices and research and education in Canada and the world.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.002 |
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".