Bibliographic record
Abstract
In September, the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) had the privilege of hosting an international colloquium of Six Organizations to Advance the Renewal of Family Medicine (SOAR 2006). Three leaders from each of the family medicine colleges of 6 countries—Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada—spent 5 days sharing their experiences related to the challenges facing family physicians, family practice, and family medicine in their nations. Discussions focused on approaches being taken to improve patients’ access to the best possible care provided or coordinated by family physicians and to sustain and strengthen the role of the discipline of family medicine in our countries. The colloquium was chaired by Dr Richard Roberts, Professor of Family Medicine at the University of Wisconsin and a member of the executive of the World Organization of Family Doctors. Following discussions at the World Organization of Family Doctors World Conference in 2004, the CFPC was selected to host the meeting. With support from Health Canada, we were able to bring this outstanding international group of family medicine leaders together. The following were among the positions shared by colloquium delegates.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.184 | 0.033 |
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".