MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326576398 · doi:10.1097/ta.0b013e3181ec2b11

2010 Trauma Association of Canada Presidential Address: Why the Trauma Association of Canada Should Care About Space Medicine

2010· article· en· W2326576398 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Andrew W. Kirkpatrick

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical Centre
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPresidential addressPresidencySpace (punctuation)Association (psychology)Professional associationPresidential systemHealth careMedicineQuality (philosophy)Trauma carePolitical sciencePublic relationsNursingPsychologyMedical emergencyPublic administrationPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Trauma Association of Canada is now 27 years old, having been officially founded in 1983, at the meetings of the Royal College as a maturation of the trauma committee of the Canadian Association of General Surgeons. The first page of the official minutes also stressed the need to welcome other disciplines into the fold. Personally, it has taken me years of involvement, as well as the Presidency, to truly appreciate the depth of our Founding Members commitment. These individuals set lofty mission goals for the organization, namely: to strive to improve the quality of care provided to the injured patient, including prehospital management and transport, acute care hospitalization, and reintegration into society; to support, conduct, and apply basic science and clinical and outcome research related to trauma; to encourage effective and efficient use of healthcare resources in the delivery of trauma care; and to foster professional and community education in the field of injury prevention and in the care of the injured patient. As daunting as these responsibilities are, I am suggesting one more: to overcome the great penalty of geography that challenges our nation and penalizes many of our citizens by aspiring to optimize these four goals, for all Canadians, irrespective of where they live--our potential fifth mission. Furthermore, I believe that lessons from space medicine may offer some strategies to accomplish this goal.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0110.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0760.018

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207