Bibliographic record
Abstract
O ur lead article is the long-awaited clinical guideline on periodic eye examinations for children under five years of age.This is an evidence-based document prepared by an expert panel representing the Canadian Association of Optometrists, the Canadian Ophthalmological Society and the Canadian Association of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, and agreed to by the three professional organizations.Historically, Canada's eye care professions have had difficulty agreeing to frequency guidelines, so the development of a common approach to eye examinations for Canadian children of preschool age is a significant and welcome event.Canadian parents will have less conflicting advice about vision care for their children and more children should enter school with optimal vision that will enhance their learning.It was a great pleasure to see many of my classmates from UW Optometry '79 at the CAO Congress in Victoria last July.While there was a lot of talk about grandchildren and plans for retirement, there was also a lot of discussion about the many advances we have seen in optometry over the past 40 years.What changes are the graduating class of 2019 going to see in the next 40 years?Both Canadian Schools of Optometry are planning for that future, but they will need the profession's support, both organizational and personal, to make it happen.This issue should arrive just ahead of the Christmas mail rush.I will take this opportunity to wish all of our readers the best for the holiday season.See you next year.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.093 | 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".