MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The WFH Haemophilia Centre Twinning Programme: 10 years of growth, 1993–2003

2003· article· en· W2113650942 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Giangrande, Giuliano Mariani, Claudia Black

Bibliographic record

VenueHaemophilia · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Hemophilia Society
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaemophiliaCoachingCrystal twinningMedicineFamily medicineMedical educationPediatricsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The World Federation of Haemophilia (WFH) Twinning Programme celebrates its tenth anniversary this year. Twinning is one of several international WFH programmes designed to improve haemophilia care at a global level. There are two types of twinning, and the haemophilia treatment centre twinning programme should be distinguished from the WFH haemophilia organization twinning involving national member organizations. The WFH Haemophilia Treatment Centre Twinning Programme helps emerging haemophilia treatment centres develop partnerships with well-established and experienced centres. Twinning can improve diagnosis and clinical care through coaching, training and transfer of expertise, ultimately leading to improved quality of life for patients. Twinning can also enhance the profile and recognition of treatment centres in emerging countries, which can be valuable in raising awareness among politicians and the media. Examples of activities include consultation on the management of specific cases, clinical and laboratory training, donation of equipment and publications as well as research projects. The centre twinning programme also benefits centres in developed countries by giving them the opportunity to gain exposure to clinical problems no longer encountered in their own countries, as well as experience of new cultures. Currently, a total of 23 treatment centres around the world are linked through the twinning programme and applications for new partnerships are welcome. Twinning links are not permanent, but are reviewed on an annual basis and typically remain in place for periods of 3-5 years. Limited financial support from WFH is available to twinned centres in the form of money for an initial assessment visit, as well as regular annual grants to established partners and the possibility of applying for additional funding to support specific projects. In addition, continuing support and advice are available from the WFH regional programme officers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations19
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHaemophiliaSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207