ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Despite the establishment of the Canadian Coalition for High Blood Pressure Prevention and Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(Coalition) by Health Canada, in 1984, by the participation of all stakeholders concerned with hypertension (or high blood pressure), the control of this silent killer is very small. The situation analysis, in 1996, warranted a critical appraisal. This led to the development of a national high blood pressure prevention and control strategy, which was readily embraced by the Coalition. An Expert Working Group was established in Fall 1996, and its members took on the challenge of compiling this strategy. Every one of the members listed in the Expert Working Group worked very hard to shape the strategy, based on scientific evidence, through substantial contributions to its content and through participation in numerous revisions. We are very grateful to the Dr. Paula Stewart for synthesizing the information from the Expert Working Group's deliberations to formulate the final strategy paper. We appreciate her patience and continuous interaction with members of the Working Group to capture the ideas and nuances to make this as a workable strategy. The support of Ms. Jackie Kierulf by providing background research is gratefully acknowledged. The development of this strategy was a partnership between Health Canada (through Adult
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".