International Credential Equivalency (CINAHL).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Covell et al (9) completed a scoping review with the primary goal of integrating internationally educated health professionals into the Canadian healthcare system. The goal of this review was to synthesize all the literature related to policies that impact immigration into Canada. The goals of our scoping review are similar to those identified by Covell et al with the following distinctions: The most significant goal will be to determine the system(s) that is/are employed to establish international equivalency of a professional with the ultimate goal of immigration and professional practice in a country that is different than their original domestic education.(9) Another significant difference of our scoping review will be to include a wider definition beyond the healthcare workforce since equivalency systems from other non-healthcare related professions may be applicable across multiple disciplines. Finally, the last difference is that the literature will not be limited to Canadian systems, even though there is a focus on the Canadian context.
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 | 0.012 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.056 | 0.064 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.187 | 0.022 |
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".