Guidelines for the provision of echocardiography in Canada: recommendations of a joint Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Society of Echocardiography Consensus Panel.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recognizing the central role of echocardiographic examinations in the assessment of most cardiac disorders and the need to ensure the provision of these services in a highly reliable, timely, economical and safe manner, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society and Canadian Society of Echocardiography undertook a comprehensive review of all aspects influencing the provision of echocardiographic services in Canada. Five regional panels were established to develop preliminary recommendations in the five component areas, which included the echocardiographic examination, the echocardiographic laboratory and report, the physician, the sonographer and indications for examinations. Membership in the panels was structured to recognize the regional professional diversity of individuals involved in the provision of echocardiography. In addition, a focus group of cardiac sonograhers was recruited to review aspects of the document impacting on sonographer responsibilities and qualification. The document is intended to be used as a comprehensive and practical reference for all of those involved in the provision of echocardiography in Canada.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".