Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a recent CMAJ commentary, Schabas 1 argues that the time has come for colorectal cancer screening in Canada using fecal occult blood (FOB) testing. He points out that, based on the available evidence, 6 Canadian groups have endorsed annual or biennial FOB screening of average-risk, asymptomatic people 50 years of age and older. He also points out that colonoscopy is an option for screening, that it is “probably a better screening tool than FOB testing ” but that we do not have the capacity to offer colonoscopy as the initial screening test. Although we agree that colonoscopy is better than FOB testing in detecting colorectal cancer and share Schabas’ concern about the capacity of our health care system to of-fer colonoscopy as the initial screening test, flexible sigmoi-
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 | 0.011 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.067 | 0.047 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.023 |
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".