MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112318128 · doi:10.1136/ip.2010.029215.381

Injury alliance in Canada

2010· article· en· W2112318128 on OpenAlexaffabout
P Fuselli, Perrin Baker, R Nesdale-Tucker

Bibliographic record

VenueInjury Prevention · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsActive Healthy KidsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipFunction (biology)DocumentationStakeholderPublic relationsBusinessPresentation (obstetrics)Stakeholder engagementAllianceProcess managementPlan (archaeology)Knowledge managementPolitical scienceComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To achieve greater societal impact within a highly competitive charitable marketplace, the four major, national, injury prevention organisations have decided to collaborate toward the following purposes: Long-term goal To save more lives and prevent more potentially life-altering injuries in Canada. Medium-term objective To raise awareness and to facilitate attitudinal and behavioural shifts among the organisations respective target populations, in partnership with their natural allies, of best practices in preventing injuries, and injury-related deaths in Canada. Short-term output The development of recommendations, an implementation plan and supporting documentation for a game changer that will build their capacity as individual organisations to promote more effective and efficient strategies and programming. Seek better ways and means to identify, integrate and approve the collaborative delivery of: ▶ knowledge creation, synthesis and transfer ▶ stakeholder engagement ▶ fund development ▶ marketing. This presentation will share the outcomes of phase I of the study in terms of defining the ideal inputs and outputs, catalogue these inputs and outputs in relation to the sponsoring organisations, describe what is unique about those inputs and outputs among the sponsoring organisations and what is shared by two or more of them, project and outline the benefits that the collaborative delivery of the function could bring, advance recommendations for amending existing processes, or introduce new ones for more suitably identifying, overseeing, managing and assessing future shared initiatives within each function, describe one or more approaches for resourcing such collaborative processes on a go-forward basis, propose a strategic or 3-year outlook for the frameworks operation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.390 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInjury PreventionSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207