Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Edmontonians pulled off a terrific 2008 conference that had all the elements: great science, insightful overviews, vigorous debates and lovely evening events.It was the kind of session that makes the CUA meeting so appealing: open and honest dialogue, free of rancour and marketing hype, and a collegial attempt to air honest differences and points of view.Dr. Metcalfe, the scientific and local organizing committees, and the Central Office staff are to be congratulated.2008/09 will be a year of consolidation of the fundamental changes in the organization of the CUA over the past 3 years.We have a new contractual relationship with the Central Office, which should ensure fiscal accountability and permit ongoing oversight of the functioning of the office by the CUA executive.We have a new director of the Office of Education, Ms. Tiffany Pizioli, who has a mandate to increase the activity and profile of the office.The CUA is accredited by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada as a provider of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) activities.As such, the CUA is able to review and provide certification of Section 1 and 3 Learning Activities, as defined by the Royal College.We encourage anyone interested in organizing a Section 1 or 3 Learning Activity to contact the CUA Office of Education (tiffany.pizioli@cua.org).We have our journal, CUAJ, whose articles are now listed and searchable on PubMed.In addition to the editorial board, which is responsible for scientific content and direction, we will work to establish a publishing committee that reports to the CUA executive, to look after the business side of the journal.The CUA has been extremely fortunate to have had highly visionary and capable leadership over the past 5 years.In particular, Yves Fradet and Michael Jewett deserve credit for implementing the Central Office arrangement; Luc Valiquette deserves recognition for managing the initiation of CUAJ, and Jim Metcalfe for overseeing the new arrangement with the SIU Central Office.Going forward, we are particularly lucky to have Denis Lavoie as secretary and Stuart Oake as treasurer.These 2 men are solid as rocks and will make the job of president much easier.The shift to a professional, nonvolunteer Central Office has, as expected, resulted in the organizational maturation of the CUA.This process, however, raises some fundamental questions about the direction and mission of the CUA, such as: What services should the CUA provide to its members?What are the goals of the annual meeting?How should it be structured to achieve this?How will we meet the challenges resulting from the profound changes in urological practice that are just beginning?How should the Office of Education interact with urologists and with the pharmaceutical industy?Should the CUA take on a more political role, as the AUA does?To help the association answer these questions, we intend to establish a long-range strategic planning initiative this year.We'll keep you posted as this process unfolds.It is a great privilege to serve the CUA as president.To facilitate this demanding role, I have handed over the leadership of several of my responsibilities to others during my term.
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 | 0.025 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.015 |
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.
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".