Overview of the Engagement Process to Develop the Future of Cancer Impact (FOCI) Report in Alberta: The Power of Collective Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This commentary provides a detailed overview of the extensive stakeholder engagement efforts critical to the development of the Future of Cancer Impact (FOCI) in Alberta report. The overarching aim of the FOCI report was to support informed and strategic discussions and actions that will help key stakeholders in the province prepare for a future with increasing cancer incidence and survival. Employing a comprehensive approach and a diverse range of engagement activities, insights from a wide spectrum of stakeholders were gathered and subsequently used to shape the content of the report. This inclusive process ensured broad representation of perspectives, contributing to a deeper understanding of the complexities in cancer care. The outcome is a robust, consensus-driven report with recommendations set to drive significant transformations within the healthcare system. These efforts highlight the critical role of extensive, inclusive, and collaborative engagement in shaping healthcare initiatives and advancing discussions crucial for the future of cancer care in Alberta.
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 | 0.066 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".