MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944192059 · doi:10.15353/cjo.73.601

Le tabagisme et la cécité : ce que les optométristes veulent faire voir à leurs patients

2011· article· fr· W2944192059 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Marlee M. Spafford, Ryan David Kennedy, Matthew D. Iley, Annette Schultz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometry · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La plupart des fumeurs ne savent pas que le tabagisme constitue une cause évitable de cécité. Même si les optométristes peuvent jouer un rôle important dans les choix santé des patients, ils ont été en grande partie muets dans l’élaboration des guides de pratique sur l’abandon du tabac et les stratégies de promotion de la santé. Au cours de cette étude, nous utilisons l’enquête réalisée dans quatre pays dans le cadre du Projet d’évaluation à l’échelon international des politiques antitabac (ITC) pour décrire dans quelle mesure les fumeurs du Canada connaissent le lien entre le tabagisme et la cécité. Nous utilisons des groupes de discussion pour dégager, chez des optométristes et des étudiants finissants en optométrie du Canada, des idées au sujet de mises en garde illustrées reliées à la cécité.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometrySame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207