Bibliographic record
Abstract
The time is ready for international co-operation in circumpolar health to move one step forward. The emergence of cheap telecommunication and several well established research institutions that focus on various aspects of health in the Arctic have made it possible to pursue international co-operation also outside the context of the triennial congresses of circumpolar health. In a sort of grassroots movement, but also inspired by the values of the International Union for Circumpolar Health (IUCH), representatives from Canada, Denmark, Finland, Greenland, Norway, Russia and United States met in Toronto during the last week of February, 2004. While the immediate aim of the meeting was to present an overview of health research among circumpolar indigenous peoples and to discuss a pan arctic study of health transition in this population, the first steps towards a formalised institutional collaboration were taken. (Int J Circumpolar Health 2004; 63(1):4-4)
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 | 0.019 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.092 | 0.034 |
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".