2020 CAO Clinical Practice Guideline: Optometric Low Vision Rehabilitation FULL GUIDELINES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the Low Vision Clinical Practice Guideline for Canadian Optometrists is to assist them in providing the best level of care in the management of patients with low vision. The guideline is based on current best evidence regarding optometric low vision rehabilitation as interpreted by an expert panel. The writing group includes optometrists from academia and private practice, representing various regions across Canada. This guideline will aid optometrists in identifying patients who require low vision rehabilitation and recommends appropriate assessment and management. As primary eye care providers, optometrists are optimally trained and qualified to identify and manage patients who would benefit from low vision rehabilitation. Optometrists, based on their geographical presence in local communities, are also well positioned to provide initial rehabilitation in a timely, effective manner, and to initiate referral for more comprehensive rehabilitation if required.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.023 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".