MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139659141 · doi:10.1155/2008/837347

Canadian Credentialing Guidelines for Colonoscopy

2008· article· en· W2139659141 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Joseph Romagnuolo, Robert Enns, Terry Ponich, Jonathon Springer, David Armstrong, Alan Barkun

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcMaster UniversityWestern UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster University Medical CentreSt Joseph's Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredentialingColonoscopyMedicineMedical physicsGeneral surgeryMedical educationInternal medicineColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A series of credentialing guidelines for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures performed in the management of adult patients has been developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) Endoscopy Committee, approved by the Clinical Affairs Committee, and reviewed and endorsed by the Executive Board. In the present article, the CAG suggests specific guidelines for credentialing colonoscopy. It is intended to be read in conjunction with the introductory article that outlines the principles of credentialing (1).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

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

Citations43
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207