Canadian demand and access to corneal transplantation: a provincial comparison
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To gather information from stakeholders involved in corneal donation and transplantation to inform discussion at the "National Consensus Forum on Improving Cornea Donation and Transplantation Access in Canada" held in February 2020, survey questions were posed to eye banks, transplanting ophthalmologists and organ donation organizations across Canada to learn more about demand, wait times, and access to tissue for transplant. The survey response rate was one hundred percent (100%) for eye banks and organ donation organizations while 64 percent (64%) of transplant ophthalmologists provided feedback. A number of opportunities for improvement were identified including: demand forecasting; infrastructure and strategies to align supply with demand; data collection and benchmarking of wait times for assessment and transplant to support consistency, equitability and transparency in access; and national collaboration in the development of a data strategy to accurately measure demand and access to cornea transplants in a consistent manner across all provinces to facilitate equity in access nationally.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it