Bibliographic record
Abstract
of Gynaecologic Endoscopy of Canada or Société d’endoscopie gynécologique du Canada (SGEC). For the past few years now, the idea of forming an association of Canadian gynaecologists with a special inter-est in endoscopic surgery, an ever-increasing component in the daily practice of gynaecol-ogy, has been taking shape. Our intention is not to create a private club: although few of us could be physically present, many have expressed their support and interest in participating in, and contributing to, the new society’s future activities. What exactly will these activities comprise? Firstly, the SGEC will be an integral part of the SOGC, with a resource person on staff at the SOGC. We are drafting the by-laws and goals of the Society, some of which are to encourage high standards for endoscopic surgery, research and publications for our members, to take part in conferences and promote our knowledge and expertise, and to create a network of experts in order to op-timize patient care and enhance relationships with other health care professionals. Our first activity as a Society will be the Endoscopy Day, scheduled within the post-graduate courses offered at the SOGC’s An-nual Clinical Meeting in Edmonton in June. This scientific day will be followed by the Annual Business Meeting, open to all, for the purposes of opening a dialogue and hearing your ideas as to our goals. Elections to the Executive will also take place. Until then, the following individuals will serve as officers of the SGEC:
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.132 | 0.054 |
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".