MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A History of the Chapter of Public Health and Occupational Physicians

2007· article· en· W2183769574 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Koh, Hin-Peng Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePublic healthOccupational medicineQuarter (Canadian coin)Alternative medicineMedical educationFamily medicineFoundation (evidence)Environmental healthNursingOccupational exposurePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Chapter of Public Health and Occupational Physicians was formed in 1980, 23 years after the founding of the Academy of Medicine in Singapore. From a modest beginning with 12 foundation Fellows, the Chapter has provided professional leadership and continuing education in public health and occupational medicine. It has organised numerous talks, conferences, seminars and symposia, and a very successful series of annual scientific meetings. The content of these activities reflect the concerns and developments of public health and occupational medicine in Singapore throughout the last quarter century. Fellows of the Chapter serve on national specialist training committees and on academic programme committees of both specialities. The Chapter also provides recommendations to the Academy on specialist qualification and training. With an active current membership of 100 Fellows, which is still growing, the Chapter is poised to further raise the professional standards and practice of public health and occupational medicine in Singapore. Key words: Academy of Medicine Singapore, Occupational Medicine, Public Health

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0060.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.015

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 head0.429
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.101 · 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
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the Academy of Medicine SingaporeSame topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207