MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009105525 · doi:10.15353/cjo.v82i1.1672

Why Optometrists Need to be Blogging

2020· article· en· W3009105525 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rhona Lahey, Cameron Martel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometry · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Imaging in Medicine
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association Of Optometrists
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaSearch engine optimizationAdvertisingInternet privacyBusinessComputer scienceWorld Wide WebSearch engine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are huge proponents of blogging for Optometry practices. It has proven to be one of the most effective ways to generate new traffic, increase brand awareness, and attract new patients. That’s why we have made it one of the pillars of our SEO (search engine optimization) strategy.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.032

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.301 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometrySame topicDigital Imaging in MedicineFrench-language works237,207