L’endoscopie et l’assurance de la qualite –Ca y est !.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis un an, l’Association canadienne de gastroenterologie (ACG) evalue des moyens de mesurer et de prevoir les aspects qualitatifs de la pratique. A la Semaine canadienne des maladies digestives 2006, on a pu entendre d’excellentes presentations sur l’endoscopie et l’assurance de la qualite, par le docteur Peter Cotton a la conference commemorative McKenna et par les docteurs Roland Valori et John Anderson au symposium « Ameliorer l’efficacite de l’endoscopie », au cours duquel ils ont passe en revue les nombreuses activites reliees a la qualite en cours au Royaume-Uni (RU). En novembre 2006, le comite de representation regionale de l’ACG a discute et accepte a l’unanimite que l’ACG defende un programme d’assurance de la qualite au Canada. Par consequent, le conseil d’administration de l’ACG a nomme des representants du comite des affaires endoscopiques et de la pratique pour a entreprendre un tel programme. La qualite en endoscopie est demeure un theme de la SCMD 2007 et au 3e congres hivernal annuel de l’ACEF, une activite de soiree qui porte sur ce sujet.
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 | 0.025 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.012 |
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".