Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 3 September 2020, Saskatchewan launched an organ donor registry that allows participants 16 years and older to register their intent to be an organ donor either online or using a paper form. Saskatchewan has historically performed poorly at a national level with low rates of organ donations. Saskatchewan's new registry is intended to increase the numbers of organ donors in the province, while also helping to modernize its organ donation system and ease donation conversations with families. Saskatchewan's introduction of this registry brought the province in line with other provinces and territories across Canada that use similar systems, and provided a response to the surge in public interest around organ donation that followed the Humboldt Bronco bus crash tragedy and related ``Logan Boulet Effect.'' The 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 provincial budgets included dedicated funding for the development and launch of the registry, which was accompanied by a media campaign to increase public awareness. Though it is too early to evaluate the success of the registry, early indications suggest donation rates will be a key evaluation metric. Registries are commonly thought to help increase public awareness of, and support for, organ donation, but improving Saskatchewan's organ donation rates will likely also require companion measures to strengthen the culture and practice of donation in the province.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 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".