Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome in March 2003 tested all aspects of BC Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC) operations. In addition to its public health responsibilities, BCCDC was pivotal in the science defining SARS. These events occurred under international scientific and media scrutiny over a 4-month period and were seen as an opportunity to learn about how the Centre performed under extreme pressure as a QM-based (quality-management-based) organization. A retrospective review of the QM practices over the previous 6-months was initiated on June 30, 2003. Key management documentation during the study period was reviewed. Structured interviews were conducted with front line personnel. Customized instrumentation was developed to correlate management decisions with recognized QM criteria: anticipatory management; keeping programs on track; ongoing adjustment, improvement, and revision; identifying and improving sources of error, waste, and redundancy; feedback from key stakeholders; and data-driven decision-making methods. The team structure between laboratory science and epidemiology was critical. This was attributed to the culture of scientific discovery of the organization. All knowledge gained was shared with other organizations around the world. The consensus is that British Columbia was very lucky this time around. This review is part of BCCDC's commitment to fighting emerging infectious diseases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.027 |
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".