Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2011, The Optometry Act, 1991 was amended to include The Designated Drugs and Standards of Practice Regulation which expanded the scope of practice for Ontario optometrists to include prescribing privileges from a specific list of drugs.The goals of the optometry reform were to increase access to care, decrease burden on medical and hospital resources and allow optometrists to practice to their full scope.The policy response was spurred by a recommendation from the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council and the prescribing precedence in other Canadian jurisdictions.Bill 171, The Health Systems Improvement Act, amended The Optometry Act, 1991, Section 4 to include the authorized act of prescribing designated drugs, while The Designated Drugs and Standards of Practice, passed on 6 April 2011, listed the individual drugs optometrists are authorized to prescribe.The resulting response of a specific list of authorized drugs was seen as a limiting and inflexible system that will require changes as newer drugs are developed. Expanding Scope of Practice for Ontario Optometrists Bray & Bourgeault Key Messages• In 2011, The Optometry Act, 1991 was amended to include The Designated Drugs and Standards of Practice Regulation, giving optometrists in Ontario the authority to prescribe from a specific list of drugs.
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 | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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.
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".