MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024570338 · doi:10.1503/cjs.010419

Pan-Canadian standards for cancer surgery

2019· article· en· W3024570338 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Anubha Prashad, Michele Mitchell, Mary Argent-Katwala, Corinne Daly, Craig C. Earle, Christian Finley

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCanadian Partnership Against Cancer
FundersHealth CanadaPartenariat Canadien Contre Le Cancer
KeywordsGeneral partnershipMedicineGovernment (linguistics)Public relationsCancerHealth careWork (physics)NursingPublic administrationEconomic growthPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

About the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer: The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) is an independent organization funded by the federal government to accelerate action on cancer control for all Canadians. As the steward of the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control (the Strategy), the Partnership works with Canada’s cancer community to take action to ensure fewer people get cancer, more people survive cancer and those living with the disease have a better quality of life. This work is guided by the Strategy, which was refreshed for 2019 to 2029, and will help drive measurable change for all Canadians affected by cancer. The Strategy includes 5 priorities that will tackle the most pressing challenges in cancer control as well as distinct First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples–specific priorities and actions reflecting Canada’s commitment to reconciliation. A specific action in the Strategy calls for reducing the differences in practice and service delivery by setting standards for high-quality care and promoting their adoption. The CPAC will oversee the implementation of the priorities in collaboration with organizations and individuals on the front lines of cancer care: the provinces and territories; health care professionals; people living with cancer and those who care for them; First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities; governments and organizations; and its funder, Health Canada. Learn more about the Partnership and the refreshed Strategy at www.cancerstrategy.ca.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0610.024

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 head0.272
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.183 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207