MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2772310523 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.5088

The future of urology in Canada

2017· article· en· W2772310523 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Gerald Brock

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Important changes are happening at the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, in how they assess our trainees' competency and readiness for independent practice.For many of us already in practice, the changes that we are witnessing in how we manage patients, such as electronic patient records, evolving technologies and greater patient awareness of treatment options through the internet, mirrors what is happening in the world outside of urology.Patients read about self-driving cars, widespread use of robotics in industry, expansion of apps that can perform almost any function and the explosion of cell phone power, replacing desk top computers, expect advances in healthcare to be similarly rapid.The CUA recognizes that these "advances" will be welcomed by most, but can represent a challenge for others and are poised to provide resources to help our membership deal with these changes.As an example, while on-line education is important today, its role in maintaining your competency and ability to continue to practice urology at the highest level, will undoubtedly increase rapidly over the next decade.It is with that understanding, that we have devoted many hours to our website and have asked our office of education team to enhance our current educational offerings, assess our ability to transmit educational programs from the live learning at the annual meeting to self-assessment learning acccesible on the CPD site and look at innovative ways to provide continuing professional development to our membership.Our annual meeting is being designed with interactive sessions focused on the needs of the practicing urologist, providing new treatment approaches, and interactive sessions that address controversial topics.The days of a social-first CUA Annual Meeting have passed, as we recognize that our membership wants high quality science, pragmatic lectures that are interactive and practice focused, with a first-rate social program to boot!The needs and practice patterns of todays urology graduates will likely be very different than what many of us have asked of the CUA in the past.It isn't just the rapid progress of technology that is changing what we do and how we do it.Strauss and Howe

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0100.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association Journal→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→