MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6964279175 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.4494512

Shaping Plastic Surgery in British Columbia—The Courtemanche Legacy

2019· other· en· W6964279175 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternshipPlastic surgerySick childMedical schoolUniversity hospitalPatient care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dr Albert Douglas Courtemanche was born in Gravenhurst, Ontario on November 16, 1929. In 1949, he was accepted to the University of Toronto Medical School, graduating in 1955. After completing his internship at the Toronto General Hospital and at the Hospital for Sick Children, he completed his surgical training in Vancouver and in the United Kingdom. When Dr Courtemanche returned from his training in 1962, he joined Dr Cowan on the surgical staff at the Vancouver General Hospital. He was responsible for establishing a new plastic surgery ward, a dedicated operating room (OR), an integrated burn unit and also starting the UBC plastic surgery training program. Dr Courtemanche became involved in working with the Royal College, first as an examiner and then as the Chairman of the Plastic Surgery Exam Board in 1981. He eventually became the first and only plastic surgeon to ever hold the position as President of the Royal College. Dr Courtemanche emphasized throughout his career the importance of teaching and role modeling. A very proud moment in Dr Courtemanche’s career was when his son Douglas became a pediatric plastic surgeon. After retiring Dr Courtemanche became a volunteer at the VanDusen Botanical Garden and completed their Master Gardeners Program.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0180.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.003

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207