Equilibrium: National and Provincial Roles in Canadian Radiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is not only healthy but customary and desirable for associations to review their governance structure periodically to ensure that it is effective in meeting the needs of members. The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) has undergone 3 such reviews in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The first was conducted in the late 1980s under the leadership of Dr Ian Sutherland, the second 10 years later under that of Dr Brian Lentle, and the latest in 2007, led by Dr David Vickar. Each of these reviews led to administrative changes that were designed ultimately to serve the Association’s constituentsdCanadian radiologists, and, by extension, the Canadian public. The major impetus for the Lentle review, conducted by an accounting-management firm in 1998, was the steadily declining membership in the CAR, which threatened its fiscal viability. It had become apparent that the Association was not providing the political leadership needed to rectify problems such as insufficient and outdated diagnostic imaging equipment in Canada. Before this review the link between the provincial radiology associations and the CAR had been through the provincial divisional councillors. There were 4 councillors from each of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and 1 from each of the other 8 provinces; all of the councillors held seats on the CAR Council. An important outcome of the 1998 review was the recognition that not all divisional councillors were able to speak with authority on behalf of the provincial radiologists that they were intended to represent. This led to the creation of the Presidents’ Forum (PF), a thinktank made up of the presidents of the 10 provincial radiology associations. This body met twice yearly at the time of the
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 | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".