CAG Education Committee – Update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of initiatives are underway.The development of the program for the Canadian Digestive Diseases Week (CDDW) 2002 started immediately after the last CDDW in Banff.A considerable amount of discussion has gone into developing a short list of symposium topics, which will reflect the learning needs of members of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG).You can review the first announcement for CDDW 2002 on our Web site at www.cag-acg.org.Further program details will be posted on the Web site and mailed to members later this summer.The committee feels that it is important to have a central event at the annual meeting that will anchor the rest of the educational events.We have, therefore, recommended that CAG re-establish the annual postgraduate course.Given that both the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology run successful annual courses, it is clear that the CAG annual course will have to offer something new and innovative if it is to compete.It has been said that it is the grasp of knowledge at the advancing edge that distinguishes subspecialists from generalists.The final format of the postgraduate course awaits the results of the needs assessment, but we intend to focus on advances, and be very interactive, case based and crisp in delivery.You will have received by now an educational needs assessment.This was distributed to all members of CAG in June 2001.The needs assessment is critical not only because it will guide the development of CAG programs but also for accreditation of CAG programs for Maintenance of Certification (MOCERT) credits.The Royal College has extended the deadline for submitting hours spent on the MOCERT Program in the 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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.110 | 0.058 |
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".