MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391023626 · doi:10.15353/cjo.v79i4.1608

Optometric Care of the Patient with Diabetes

2017· article· en· W4391023626 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Chris Hudson, Dianna Leong, Erin Loewen, Derek MacDonald, Angie Machmer, Ken Mandadakis, Henry Smit, Nohad Teliani, Benoît Tousignant

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEye careGeneral partnershipMedicineOptometryDiabetes mellitusHealth carePrimary carePromotion (chess)Family medicineNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Association of Optometrists (CAO) is the national voice of optometry and is dedicated to collaboratively advancing the highest standard of primary eye care through the promotion of optimal vision and eye health, in partnership with all Canadians. Optometrists are the front line of eye health and vision care. They are experts in primary eye care and are well-positioned to help combat the vision related complications of diabetes. CAO assembled the Diabetes Guidelines Working Group to create national guidelines on the clinical management of diabetes mellitus in an effort to further educate Canadian optometrists and assist them in the management of this chronic disease. The Working Group consists of optometrists from private practice, research and academia, chosen on the basis of their expertise, experience and representation from across Canada.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometrySame topicRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207