MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108364029 · doi:10.1080/24745332.2020.1828683

Delivering pulmonary rehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic: A Canadian Thoracic Society position statement

2020· article· en· W3108364029 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gail Dechman, Raymond Aceron, Marla Beauchamp, Mohit Bhutani, Jean Bourbeau, Dina Brooks, Roger Goldstein, Donna Goodridge, Paul Hernandez, Tania Janaudis‐Ferreira, Didier Saey, Darcy D. Marciniuk, Sharla-Rae Olsen, Erika Penz, C.J. Ryerson, Joshua Wald, Jason Weatherald, Michael K. Stickland

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Respiratory Critical Care and Sleep Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthAlberta Health ServicesLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of CalgarySt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityWest Park Healthcare CentreMcMaster UniversityRoyal Alexandra HospitalUniversité LavalUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of TorontoDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosition statementCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicRehabilitationStatement (logic)Position (finance)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakMedicinePulmonary rehabilitationSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Physical therapyPolitical scienceFamily medicineVirologyBusinessInternal medicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This position statement aims to provide guidance for resumption of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) services during the post-peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic (ie, period of low community prevalence...

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.008
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0090.007
Research integrity0.0390.047
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.006

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.305 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Respiratory Critical Care and Sleep MedicineSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207