MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185352180 · doi:10.18192/uojm.v5i2.1307

A Time to Talk about Technology – Discussion about Medical Technology with the ATIME Group at The Ottawa Hospital

2015· article· fr· W2185352180 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Stephen Y.Y. Leung, Cindy C Y Law, Sonam Maghera, Daniel Goubran

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Ottawa Journal of Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomedical and Engineering Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth technologyPromotion (chess)MedicinePolitical scienceHumanitiesLibrary scienceHealth carePhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT:In recent years, the use of technology in medicine has become increasingly common. Medical technology has the potential to introduce innovative solutions to clinical problems and supplement current methods of medical education. Advancements in Technology In Medical Education (ATIME) at The Ottawa Hospital is dedicated to discovering and sharing advances in technology with the medical community, as well as promoting the appreciation and use of technology in the next generation of physicians.RÉSUMÉ:Au cours des dernières années, l’utilisation de la technologie en médecine est devenue de plus en plus commune. La technologie médicale a le potentiel d’introduire des solutions innovatrices à des problèmes cliniques et de compléter les méthodes actuelles en éducation médicale. Advancements in Technology In Medical Education (ATIME) à L’Hôpital d’Ottawa est dédié à la découverte et au partage des progrès en technologie avec la communauté médicale, ainsi que voué à la promotion de l’appréciation et de l’utilisation de la technologie dans la prochaine génération de médecins.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0410.011
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0140.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.006

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Ottawa Journal of MedicineSame topicBiomedical and Engineering EducationFrench-language works237,207