Canadian Cardiovascular Society, the power of collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Working together makes all of us better. The members of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) see that when it comes to the health of our patients. More broadly, the success of CCS can be tied to a spirt of collaboration. Canadian Cardiovascular Society traces its roots to 1947. Three Canadian doctors had an idea to create a group of specialized medical experts who could cooperate with and learn from each other. That grew into CCS, Canada’s national voice for cardiovascular clinicians and scientists. Today, CCS has over 2000 members and engages in knowledge translation, professional development and health policy advocacy. To promote cardiovascular health and care excellence, CCS understands—as its founders recognized—that collaboration is critical. That’s part of the national character. Canada has a small population of 35 million spread over almost 10 million Km2 (just slightly smaller than Europe). The country has a national health mandate, but delivery is through 10 individual provinces and three territories.
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 | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.010 |
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".