CSHP Professional Practice Conference 2009: Poster Abstracts/ Conférence sur la pratique professionnelle 2009 de la SCPH : Résumés des affiches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Comparaison du niveau d'accord à des énoncés sur l'éthique pharmaceutique entre des internes français et québécois 2. Fentanyl Patches: Analysis of International Medication Incidents 3. Development of a Sustainable Parenteral to Oral Antimicrobial Monitoring Protocol 4. Reversal of Parenteral Nutrition-Induced Cholestasis in Infants with Intestinal Failure Using Parenteral Fish Oil: a Canadian Single Centre Case Series 5. Affichage en temps réel de la production dans un satellite d'oncologie 6. Varenicline-Associated Symptoms of Bipolar Mania 7. Heparin Nomograms-Evaluation of Adherence and Effectiveness 8. Revue d'utilisation de la ticarcilline/acide clavulanique en soins intensifs pédiatriques 9. Évaluation d'un module web pour la localisation des médicaments d'urgence 10.Projet pilote de développement d'une banque de données d'image pour l'identification des médicaments en établissement de santé 11.Validation of a Computerized Program (the Glucommander Method) for Insulin Infusion Adjustments in a Cardiovascular Surgery Intensive Care Unit 12. Monte Carlo Simulations (MCSs) of Meropenem in Patients with Varying Degrees of Renal Function
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.109 | 0.025 |
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".