MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236187518 · doi:10.15353/cjo.80.276

Éditorial

2018· article· fr· W4236187518 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Stanley Woo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometry · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

est pour moi un grand honneur et un privilège d'être le directeur de l'École d'optométrie et des sciences de la vision de l'Université de Waterloo.Ayant grandi à Waterloo, j'ai beaucoup de bons souvenirs d'enfance où j'ai fréquenté l'école, le corps professoral, le personnel et les étudiants.J'ai eu l'impression de rentrer chez moi après avoir passé 27 ans aux États-Unis.L'École continue d'être un endroit fascinant où l'on trouve des gens merveilleux, des soins exceptionnels aux patients, une éducation de premier ordre et des recherches de calibre mondial.Plus récemment, j'ai occupé le poste de doyen du Southern California College of Optometry (SCCO), alors qu'il se métamorphosait d'un collège indépendant, privé et sans but lucratif en une université des professions de la santé.Sous la direction visionnaire du président Kevin L. Alexander et du Conseil d'administration, le SCCO est devenu l'Université Marshall B. Ketchum avec l'ajout d'une école d'études pour les adjoints au médecin et d'une faculté de pharmacie.L'engagement et la détermination à créer un établissement où l'optométrie fait partie intégrante des soins de santé primaires étaient tout simplement stupéfiants et comprenaient l'ajout du Ketchum Health comme incubateur pour explorer des modèles de pratique en collaboration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3160.177

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometrySame topicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, GenderFrench-language works237,207