modelling: Guidelines for creating a Community of Practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
application of modelling in public health decision making and practice has not yet met its full potential. There is still room to better address the diversity of the Canadian population and ensure that research outcomes are translated for use within their relevant contexts. OBJECTIVES: To strengthen connections to public health practice and to broaden its scope, the Pandemic Influenza Outbreak Research Modelling team partnered with the National Collaborating Centre for Infectious Diseases to hold a national workshop. Its objectives were to: understand areas where modelling terms, methods and results are unclear; share information on how modelling can best be used in informing policy and improving practice, particularly regarding the ways to integrate a focus on health equity considerations; and sustain and advance collaborative work in the development and application of modelling in public health. METHOD: The Use of Mathematical Modelling in Public Health
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 | 0.067 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.034 |
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".