A National Consensus Forum on improving cornea donation and transplantation access in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A consensus meeting was held in Toronto on February 9-10, 2020 to discuss ways to improve cornea donation and transplantation access in Canada. The meeting brought together eye and tissue bank representatives, health authority and hospital leadership, transplant ophthalmologists, organ donation organizations, transplant recipients, donor families and several national organizations. Through facilitated discussions in multidisciplinary, gender-balanced, and geographically balanced small groups, participants identified opportunities for improvement in the Canadian cornea donation and transplantation system. Discussion occurred around broad themes of donor tissue demand, supply, access, utilization, interprovincial sharing and cost recovery, interprovincial knowledge sharing and research. This event marked the first time in 10 years in which the Canadian cornea transplantation community came together.
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 | 0.049 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".