MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766254664 · doi:10.25011/cim.v38i4.24259

Scientific overview: CSCI-CITAC Annual General Meeting and Young Investigators' Forum 2014

2015· article· en· W2766254664 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jonathan Keow, Eric Y. Stutheit-Zhao, Nardin Samuel, Ayan Dey, Raphaël Schneider, Michael Chen, Xin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and investigative medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipLibrary scienceMedicineTheme (computing)Medical educationFamily medicineGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Society of Clinician Investigators (CSCI) and Clinical Investigator Trainee Association of Canada/Association des cliniciens-chercheurs en formation du Canada (CITAC/ACCFC) annual general meeting (AGM) was held in Toronto during November 21-24, 2015 for the first time in conjunction with the University of Toronto Clinician-Investigator Program Research Day. The overall theme for this year's meeting was the role of mentorship in career development, with presentations from Dr. Chaim Bell (University of Toronto), Dr. Shurjeel Choudhri (Bayer Healthcare), Dr. Ken Croitoru (University of Toronto), Dr. Astrid Guttman (University of Toronto), Dr. Prabhat Jha (University of Toronto) and Dr. Sheila Singh (McMaster University). The keynote speakers of the 2014 AGM included Dr. Qutayba Hamid, who was presented with the Distinguished Scientist Award, Dr. Ravi Retnakaran, who was presented with the Joe Doupe Award, and Dr. Lorne Babiuk, who was the CSCI-RCPSC Henry Friesen Award winner. The highlight of the conference was, once again, the outstanding scientific presentations from the numerous clinician investigator (CI) trainees from across the country who presented at the Young Investigators' Forum. Their research topics spanned the diverse fields of science and medicine, ranging from basic science to cutting-edge translational research, and their work has been summarized in this review. Over 120 abstracts were presented at this year's meeting. This work was presented during two poster sessions, with the six most outstanding submitted abstracts presented in the form of oral presentations during the President's Forum.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0130.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1000.081

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 head0.448
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.030 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and investigative medicineSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207