MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976409382 · doi:10.15353/cjo.v81i3.741

Portrait of the profession according to millenials

2019· article· en· W2976409382 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Claudine Lussier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Optometry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnapshot (computer storage)PortraitOptometryMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Optometric Leaders Forum (OLF), held in late January, is THE annual gathering of leaders from associations, provincial associations and Canadian schools of optometry. It is a good opportunity for taking stock of the current practice and identifying emerging trends. In order to obtain a snapshot of the situation, the Canadian Association of Optometrists (CAO) conducted two surveys. One was done among optometry students from the Montreal and Waterloo schools, and the other was done among young optometrists from 2013 to 2017. The respondents were therefore millennials aged 21 to 37. We compare students’ ideals to the reality of young graduates in a context of full employment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of OptometrySame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207