MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099231751

The GAC and Ontario’s Medical Schools: Guideline Adoption and Collaboration GAC Guidelines Background

2015· article· en· W7099231751 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineWork (physics)Continuing medical educationProduct (mathematics)Advisory committeeMedical practice
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are two visible barriers to clinical infor-mation transfer in health care. The intention of this article is to describe these barriers as each relates to the adoption of best evi-dence in the form of clinical practice guidelines. This “adoption work ” is the business of the Guidelines Advisory Committee of Ontario (GAC).1 First, there is good evidence the Continuing Medical Education (CME) short course, offered as the major product of Canada’s medical schools, is an inadequate vehicle to produce practice change among Canadian physicians.2 Despite good intentions, there are many prob-lems with this kind of continuing professional development. For the most part, such CME is

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0090.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.331
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207