Development of an advocacy and position statement for stroke professionals in Canada - the Canadian Stroke Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: While guidelines such as the Canadian Stroke Best Practices have been developed for stroke professionals to use in providing quality stroke care, gaps remain in providing this care. There also remains a need for organized stroke education and research from a national perspective, allowing information and advances in stroke care to be disseminated across the country. A national platform for stroke professionals is needed to advocate for quality care, and to provide education and research support. Aim: The Canadian Stroke Consortium is Canadau2019s professional organization for stroke professionals, representing stroke neurologists, allied health professionals, clinical researchers, and stroke experts across the continuum of care. We strive to ensure excellence in stroke care, education, and clinical research, through advocacy and collaboration with governments and public health organizations to provide high quality stroke care for all Canadians. As part of our efforts to provide this, a position statement was drafted to establish the Consortiumu2019s guiding principles. Intervention and Results: A Policy and Advocacy Committee was established by the Consortium to determine positions and statements supported by the group that would serve as a basis for advocacy to provincial and national decision-makers and stakeholders. Statements were reviewed by the committee and a final list was compiled based upon feedback and consensus. Future Directions: These statements will be made publicly available on the Canadian Stroke Consortiumu2019s website, and the group will determine a strategy for discussion and lobbying to promote and enact the positions to improve stroke care across the country.
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 | 0.098 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".