Let’s Talk LMCC (S02E01): Chest Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Welcome to the McGill Journal of Medicine (MJM) LMCC review. This podcast series was created to aid medical students studying for the Canadian Medical Council’s licensing exam. Each episode is created based on specific LMCC objectives and is divided into 2 parts. In part one we provide an overview of the topic with the help of experts in the field, followed by Part 2 where we review LMCC styled questions to help consolidate knowledge. In this episode of “Approach to Chest Pain” Dr Esther Kang, resident in Anesthesiology at McGill University and MJM Podcast Team co-lead had the opportunity to chat with our expert advisors, Dr. Jesse Li, a family and emergency physician practicing in Richmond Hill and Lakeridge Ontario, and Dr. Gordon Yao a family physician in Richmond Hill with extended practice in long term care, coroner duties and clinical tutorship at Queens University. Objective 14 : Chest Pain. This episode was written by Esther SH Kang, edited by Jesse Li, Gordon Yao, and the MJM Podcast Team Please see our website www.mjmmed.com for more information, including a link to show notes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.297 | 0.121 |
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".