Consensus statement on self-monitoring in diabetes: Institute of Health Economics, Alberta, Canada, November 14–16, 2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This consensus statement was prepared by an independent panel of health professionals, academics, and public representatives based on (1) relevant published studies assembled by the Institute of Health Economics, (2) presentations by experts working in areas relevant to the conference questions, (3) presentations by people living with diabetes, (4) questions and comments from conference attendees during open discussion periods, and (5) closed deliberations by the panel. It is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the Institute of Health Economics or the Government of Alberta. This consensus statement reflects the panel's assessment of scientific knowledge available at the time the statement was written. The objectives of the panel are to develop a consensus statement on the benefits and costs of testing supplies for self-monitoring of blood glucose in diabetes, to inform patients, health policy, and practice.
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 | 0.097 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
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".