Promouvoir la surveillance optimale de la croissance des enfants au Canada : L'utilisation des nouvelles courbes de croissance de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé – Résumé
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La publication des Normes OMS de croissance de l’enfant et des valeurs de référence pour la croissance OMS a suscité une réévaluation des courbes de croissance les mieux adaptées à la surveillance et à l’évaluation de la croissance des enfants canadiens. Les diététistes du Canada, la Société canadienne de pédiatrie, Le Collège des médecins de famille du Canada et l’Association canadienne des infirmières et infirmiers communautaires ont élaboré conjointement le document de principes intitulé Promoting Optimal Monitoring of Child Growth in Canada: Using the New WHO Growth Charts, dont le résumé esttraduit en français. Ce document est conçu pour que les professionnels de la santé l’utilisent comme directives cliniques. On vise ainsi à promouvoir des pratiques uniformes de surveillance de la croissance et d’évaluation des schémas de croissance linéaire et de prise de poids chez les nourrissons, les enfants et les adolescents, afin de soutenir une croissance et un développement sains chez les enfants. Document conjoint complet : Promoting optimal monitoring of child growth in Canada: Using the new World Health Oranization growth charts (disponible en anglais seulement)
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 | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".