Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance is a growing public health threat that at times may appear to be unsolvable. However, in the last few years, great advances have been made to address this issue in Canada and around the world. Our Federal Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance and Use in Canada has identified three pillars to address antimicrobial resistance: surveillance, stewardship and innovation. In this supplement are examples of successful stewardship programs for the community, physicians and health care organizations; there are many more. Given that we know successful stewardship programs are possible, it is important to continue this work across the country. Each success helps and multiple successes can create a synergistic effect that can lead to a change in patient expectations and prescribing patterns. Our antimicrobials are a precious resource. It is well worth the effort to contribute to this synergy and build a culture of stewardship so that antimicrobials will continue to be effective for generations to come.
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 | 0.017 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.049 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".