MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976107994 · doi:10.15353/cjo.v81i3.1564

Cinq défis habituels en matière de RH pour toutes les pratiques d’optométrie

2019· article· fr· W2976107994 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Trudi Charest

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Optometry · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Q uelle que soit la taille de votre pratique d'optométrie, vous avez probablement éprouvé des problèmes sur le plan des ressources humaines.Il est vrai que nous ne pouvons pas gérer nos cabinets sans des employés.Par conséquent, comprendre les défis qui se posent à tous et se préparer à les relever constitue une stratégie d'affaires intelligente.Les ressources humaines englobent un vaste éventail de sujets.Nous nous limiterons donc à examiner les cinq principaux défis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of OptometrySame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207