Interaction of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology with Industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
37 The interaction of professionals, professional associations and universities with the pharmaceutical industry is under intense scrutiny (1-9). Throughout the 1990s, the relationship of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) with the pharmaceutical industry was guided by a document entitled Guidelines Regarding the Conduct of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology with the Pharmaceutical and Manufacturing Industries. That document was written at a time when the principal activity of the CAG was its participation in the annual meetings of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. The research and educational programs of the CAG have had great benefit from the interactions of the CAG with a variety of industries over many years, but the reader will know that the extent of research and educational activities of the CAG has grown enormously. In 2000, the governing board of the CAG charged the ethics committee with reviewing its policy for interactions of the CAG with the pharmaceutical industry. The ethics committee (Dr Jeff Axler, Dr Anne-Marie Griffiths, Dr CA Ottaway) reviewed the existing policy, the emerging literature and the position of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA), and made recommendations to the governing board for a new position statement regarding CAG-industry interactions (Appendix 1). This position statement was discussed in detail at CAG board meetings in late 2000 and early 2001, but final approval was deferred while the CMA was updating its policy on physicians and the pharmaceutical industry. That policy was adopted by the CMA during 2001, and the position statement regarding CAG-industry interactions was adopted by the CAG governing board at its meeting November 24, 2001. This position statement is coherent with the code of ethics of the CMA, and the CMA policy on physicians and the pharmaceutrical industry. It would not be appropriate for the CAG to adopt policies that would place its members, many of whom are physicians, in a position that would conflict with the policies of the CMA. The CAG recognizes that, in the complexity of modern professional life, situations regularly arise in which primary and secondary interests, and primary and secondary obligations, coexist. As Korn (10) observed:
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 | 0.019 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.008 |
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".