MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243767454 · doi:10.15353/cjo.79.416

Editorial

2019· editorial· es· W4243767454 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
E. Ralph Chou

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometry · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Health Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e begin 2017 with a countdown towards the Canadian Association of Optometrists' biennial Congress in Ottawa, where many members will gather for several days of reunions and continuing education, culminating in the Canada Day festivities on Parliament Hill that mark our nation's sesquicentennial birthday party.Looking back over the past 50 years, Canada and our profession have seen many changes.In 1967, as the lyrics of Bobby Gimby's centennial song Canada wafted over the radio and school announcement systems, 20 million Canadians looked forward to completion of the Trans-Canada Highway and the opening of Expo 67 in Montreal.Bilintheir last Stanley Cup.Optometry was working towards acceptance as a true health profession as its once private College in Toronto prepared to move to the University of Waterloo and become a public institution.society that welcomes immigrants and refugees more than ever before in its history, swelling our population to 36 million.Optometry is no longer a "drugless" health discipline, and is accepted as an integral part of primary health care from coast to coast to coast.Our two university-based Schools of Optometry and Vision Science have solid academic and clinical reputations nationally and internationally.Despite optometry's advances, there still remain unmet vision needs in Canada.In this issue, Dr. Chris and colleagues discuss one gap they found in First Nations schools, and Dr. Andrew Rixon presents a review of ocular hypertension.An Optocase Mini on chalazion and two short articles on practice management round out this issue.Later this year, look for our supplement on glaucoma.If you haven't gotten around to it, please consider registering for the CAO Congress.I look forward to seeing many of you in Ottawa in June.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4400.318

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.421 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometrySame topicOphthalmology and Visual Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207