Toward a more effective approach to stroke: Canadian Best Practice Recommendations for Stroke Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Each year more than 50,000 Canadians experience a stroke and more than 300,000 currently live with its effects. Despite the evidence supporting best practices in stroke care, significant gaps in translating this knowledge into action remains in Canada. An interdisciplinary working group of the Canadian Stroke Strategy was formed to develop best-practice recommendations relevant to Canadian health care. The working group used a rigorous process to develop the guidelines, which included reviewing existing stroke recommendations and research literature, and consulting a national interprofessional consensus panel. The Canadian Best Practice Recommendations for Stroke Care consist of 24 recommendations based on the strongest evidence and address topics that span the full continuum of stroke care. Implementation and dissemination of these recommendations is in progress. Bringing about change will require political will and collaboration throughout the health care system.
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 | 0.033 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".