Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this letter is to initiate a constructive dialogue, clarify some of the information provided in the CPOJ recent article, “Evolving business models in orthotics” and to highlight our concerns with respect to important context about the orthotic and prosthetic profession in Canada that we feel was missing from the publication (Schneider N. Evolving business models in orthotics. Canadian prosthetics & orthotics journal. 2021; Volume 4, Issue 2, No.3. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v4i2.35876). Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/37717/28740 How To Cite: Laakso L. Letter to the editor regarding: Evolving business models in orthotics. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2022; Volume 5, Issue 1, No.3. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v5i1.37717 Corresponding Author: Linda Laakso, MSc CO(c) FCBC, OPC PresidentOrthotics Prosthetics Canada (OPC), Toronto, Canada.Custom Orthotic Design Group Ltd., Mississauga, Canada.E-Mail: lindalaakso@customorthotic.caORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1636-3717OPC website: https://opcanada.ca/
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".