MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944397478 · doi:10.15353/cjo.79.290

Dry Eye Diseases and Ocular Surgery: Practical Guidelines for Canadian Eye Care Practitioners

2017· article· en· W2944397478 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaNorth Toronto Eye CareUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEye careDiseaseEye surgeryOptometrySurgeryIntensive care medicineGeneral surgeryOphthalmologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2014, the Canadian Dry Eye Disease Consensus Panel published Guidelines for screening, diagnosis and management of dry eye diseases (DED). These did not address the implications of DED for individuals who are being considered for or have recently undergone ocular surgery. DED is common in certain surgical cohorts, and the perisurgical setting poses specific challenges, both because surgery can complicate preexisting DED and because symptomatic and non-symptomatic DED place the patient at risk of poor surgical outcomes. The Consensus Panel has developed this Addendum to the 2014 Guidelines to offer guidance on DED care before and after ocular surgery.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.351 · 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