MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944385422 · doi:10.15353/cjo.80.272

Top Legal Risks and Regulatory Trends Facing Canadian Optometrists

2018· article· en· W2944385422 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Gowling WLG

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHotlineMedicineOptometryEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Doctors of Optometry are subject to many of the same legal risks and trends facing most regulated health professionals in Canada. These legal exposures range in scale from College investigations into an optometrist’s billing practices to seven-figure lawsuits alleging that an optometrist failed to appropriately diagnose andrefer a patient for further investigation and treatment. This article uses information gained through calls made by insured optometrists to the Canadian Association of Optometrist (CAO)’s Insurance Program pro bono legal services hotline along with over 15 years of program claims data to provide an overview of common legal risks and regulatory trends affecting the profession.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0210.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometrySame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207