Letter to the Editor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dear Editor, In our publication (Jacob et al., 2020) we stated on page 39, paragraph 4, the following regarding why gynaecologists avoid cystoscopies: “The reason for this is that acquiring cystoscopy skills is not part of the Obstetrics and Gynecology residency curriculum for Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) certification and most residents graduate from their obstetrics and gynaecology training without learning to perform a cystoscopy and do not feel comfortable using this basic and fundamental diagnostic instrument”. This statement is erroneous. Recently, it was pointed out to us that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada Objectives of Training in the Specialty of Obstetrics and Gynecology were amended and include the following statement applicable after July 1, 2016: “The following procedures in List A are those that the fully trained resident in Obstetrics and Gynecology must be competent to perform independently: 5.2.2.41. Limited cystoscopy” We regret our error and apologise for any inconvenience. G.P. Jacob, G.A. Vilos, F. Al Turki, G. Bhangav, B. Abu-Rafea, AG.. Vilos, A. Ternamian
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".