Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dr Danielle Grenier The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) lost one of its dearest family members and Paediatrics & Child Health one of its most careful reviewers on September 24, 2014. Danielle Grenier’s name may not be familiar to all readers of Paediatrics & Child Health, but her work likely touched each one of you. She was an inspirational advocate for Canadian children and youth, a dedicated and compassionate community paediatrician known for her exemplary care. Those active in the CPS knew Dr Danielle Grenier through her role as Director of Medical Affairs from 1994 until 2014. Her influence extended to the provincial, national and international levels. She was a driving force behind the Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program, co-Editor-in-Chief of Well-Beings: A guide to health in child care, and co-chair of the Immunization Competencies Education Program. Dr Grenier was on the editorial board of Caring for Kids New to Canada, and was an active member of Québec’s Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse since 1999. She was also a champion for the Residents Section of the CPS, and was a prolific contributor to the Journal, with nearly 40 articles to her credit. What many Paediatrics & Child Health readers may not know is that Dr Grenier reviewed each and every position statement and practice point published by the CPS. Her careful scrutiny picked up inconsistencies between text, tables and/or recommendations as well as sentence structures that may have been difficult to understand, especially if English was not one’s first language. But much more importantly, Dr Grenier always reviewed with the needs of children and youth and practitioners top of mind. Many times, she would draw attention to gaps in background or recommendations that may not be applicable in practice. She was exceptionally well read, so when she suggested that something should be changed before the CPS Board of Directors could finalize a position, she was always right on the mark. Thus, quietly but diligently in the background, Dr Grenier helped to ensure that what the CPS recommended was always as clear and practical as possible. She will be much missed but her legacy of practical excellence will live on.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.012 |
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".