MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2759440510 · doi:10.1503/cjs.012117

Calgary, Edmonton and the University of Alberta: the extraordinary medical mobilization by Canada’s newest province

2017· article· en· W2759440510 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mark P. Da Cambra, Vivian C. McAlister

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Innovations
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpanish Civil WarResilience (materials science)World War IIFamily medicineLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: The Canadian contribution of medical services to the British Empire during the First World War was a national endeavour. Physicians from across the country enlisted in local regiments to join. No other region provided more physicians per capita than the newly formed province of Alberta. Largely organized through the Medical School of the University of Alberta, the No. 11 Canadian Field Ambulance out of Edmonton and the No. 8 Canadian Field Ambulance out of Calgary ultimately enlisted between one-third and half of the province's doctors to the war campaign. Many individuals from this region distinguished themselves, including LCol J.N. Gunn from Calgary, who commanded the No. 8 Canadian Field Ambulance; Maj Heber Moshier, one of the founders of the School of Pharmacy at the University of Alberta; and Dr. A.C. Rankin, who would go on to be the first Dean of Medicine at the University of Alberta. These Canadian heroes, and the many others like them who served with the No. 8 and 11 Field Ambulances, personify the sacrifice, strength and resilience of the medical community in Alberta and should not be forgotten.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.152 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Surgery→Same topicMedical History and Innovations→French-language works237,207→