Bibliographic record
Abstract
ur lead article in this issue is an Executive Summary of the Canadian Association of Optometrists' Clinical Guideline on Optometric Low Vision Rehabilitation.As Canada's population ages, the number of individuals affected by conditions resulting in low vision is expected to increase substantially and with longer life expectancy, their needs for low vision rehabilitation services will be for a much longer duration than for previous generations.This presents a great challenge not only for individual clinicians, but also for those planning for logistics and financing of seniors' health care.The full 80-page Clinical Practice Guideline can be found on the Canadian Journal of Optometry (CJO) section of the University of Waterloo's Open Journal System at https://openjournals.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/cjo.This is the second Clinical Guideline to appear in the CJO in as many issues, following on the Clinical Practice Guidelines for periodic eye examinations for children 0 -5.Both documents are evidence-based and represent the best consensus among the experts involved in their writing.Reaching that consensus is not an easy task, particularly when different professional groups with somewhat disparate viewpoints are involved.How closely the individual clinician follows a particular Guideline is a matter of professional judgment and the patient's best interests should dictate how care is provided.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.095 | 0.074 |
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".