MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335449634 · doi:10.1155/2003/414368

The 1993 Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Strategic Plan: Excellence in Achievement

2003· article· en· W2335449634 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Richard N. Fedorak, Philip M. Sherman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrategic planningCornerstoneExcellenceSpecialtyManagementPolitical scienceMedicineLibrary sciencePublic administrationFamily medicineLawHistoryEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By the summer of 1990, the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) had been in existence as Canada’s premier gastroenterology society for nearly thirty years. The specialty of gastroenterology was in an exponential growth phase and many changes were on the horizon, including discussions as to whether the CAG should continue to conduct its annual meeting in conjunction with the Royal College meeting. In 1990, the CAG Governing Board and then president Dr Eldon Shaffer initiated a membership needs analysis (with technical assistance provided through the Strategic Planning Group at Searle Canada Inc) to provide a foundation for a strategic planning process that was to carry forward over the next several years and ultimately produce the CAG’s first strategic planning document. After substantial review and assessment, the 1991/1992 and 1992/1993 CAG Governing Boards approved the 1993 CAG Strategic Plan. This strategic plan served the organization well over the past decade and has provided the cornerstone upon which the CAG advanced many progressive initiatives.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologySame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207