Canadian Public Health Laboratory Network National Syphilis Laboratory Testing Recommendations: Introduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of these recommendations arose in the spring of 2009 under the support and recommendation of the Canadian Public Health Laboratory Network (CPHLN).The initial group was formed of a federal co-chair (RT), a provincial co-chair (MM) and a CPHLN secretariat lead (SR).An initial environmental scan was performed in 2009, which was published in August 2011 (R Tsang, SM Radons, M Morshed.Laboratory diagnosis of syphilis: A survey to examine the range of tests used in Canada.Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 2011;22[3]:83-87).National representation was added to the working group in 2010, including laboratory scientists from the provincial public health laboratories, STI clinicians, epidemiologists and researchers.The group divided into smaller groups for the drafting of each chapter, which was written and presented back to the larger group.Once the document was finalized by the Syphilis Working Group, it was reviewed and approved by the CPHLN Laboratory Directors Council (comprised of federal/provincial/territorial PHL directors or their representatives), before submission to the Journal.
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 | 0.016 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".