718 Canadian Family Physician • Le Médecin de famille canadien VOL 52: JUNE • JUIN 2006 Letters Correspondance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
argue that 2 years is already plenty and we would have a hard time selling students on the idea of a longer pro-gram. Actually, there is no shortage of curriculum. It already takes 3 years to earn a CCFP (EM) designation. Family medi-cine is at the forefront of emerging primary care fi elds in chronic disease management, collaborative and team care, community care, self-care, prevention, and health informat-ics. Hospital care and hospitalist work also come to mind. In the end, the biggest challenge might be to con-vince ourselves. We have been undervalued for so long that we are starting to believe our work isn’t important and doesn’t need much skill or training. That was never true. We will be even more important in the future, and specialty recognition is a step in the right direction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.105 | 0.013 |
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".