MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153922623 · doi:10.5770/cgj.15.49

Recommendations of the 4th Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia (CCCDTD4)

2012· article· en· W2153922623 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Serge Gauthier, Christopher Patterson, Howard Chertkow, Michael Gordon, Nathan Herrmann, Kenneth Rockwood, Pedro Rosa‐Neto, Jean‐Paul Soucy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geriatrics Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill UniversityAmerican Academy of Neurology
KeywordsMedicineDementiaConsensus conferenceFamily medicineGerontologyPathologyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 4th CCCDTD convened in May 2012 in Montreal with the primary aim of updating the previous diagnostic approach to AD, taking into account the revised diagnostic criteria proposed by the International Working Group (IWG) and the recommendations made by the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer Association workgroups.

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)0.092
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.122
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0920.122
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.011
Bibliometrics0.0160.010
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0170.006
Research integrity0.0190.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations138
Published2012
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geriatrics JournalSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207