Setting priorities in arthritis care: Care III Conference.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The disparity between supply and demand in arthritis services can lead to delays in diagnosis and access to effective treatments. The focus of 2005 CARE III Conference was to develop a research agenda to improve care for people with arthritis. Topics included models of care, nonpharmacological/nonsurgical interventions for arthritis, and issues around study design, outcome measures and knowledge translation and exchange. Seven priority areas emerged from the discussion: (1) Develop new, innovative arthritis care strategies; (2) Adapt and implement effective service models to address local needs; (3) Understand factors related to successful team care; (4) Match patients' needs with appropriate care models; (5) Design new or improve outcome measures for participation and quality of life; (6) Foster partnerships in sharing research evidence; and (7) Address needs for training and quality assurance.
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 | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.011 |
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".