MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391045061 · doi:10.15353/cjo.v68i2.4601

CAO 2006 Report: Optometric Leaders' Forum

2021· article· en· W4391045061 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Cao Aco

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicResearch, Science, and Academia
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSession (web analytics)Plan (archaeology)Work (physics)Political scienceLibrary sciencePublic relationsMedical educationPublic administrationEngineeringMedicineGeographyBusinessComputer scienceAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CAO held its annual Optometric Leaders' Forum (OLF) in Ottawa, January 27-29. t was a lively and productive session with ample presentations and dialogue surrounding different areas of activity and in­terest within the optometric community. CAO Committees and Provincial Associations also took this occasion to break out in groups to make presentations and work together to plan for 2006 and beyond.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0350.036
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0060.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.353 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometrySame topicResearch, Science, and AcademiaFrench-language works237,207