Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past few months, there have been a number of important historical events that have drawn our attention: A new Canadian government promoting a health agenda promising to improve access to home care, produce a national prescription drug plan, improve access to mental health services, and develop a strategy for healthy aging. Recent federal legislation that offers Canadians the right to choose medically assisted death, yet lingering concerns remain that our system of palliative care might not be optimal and may further marginalize already vulnerable individuals. Renewed attention on recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (2015), which emphasizes the deeply interconnected health and social disparities of our Indigenous peoples and factors that have led to their vulnerability, such as racialization, colonization and poverty to name a few. Health ministers’ meeting to explore and make a plan to break down structural and political silos that prevent optimal health of all Canadians.
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.040 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.024 |
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".