MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099488170

Community Partners:

2003· article· en· W7099488170 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Physics and Python Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlueprintGeneral partnershipBest practiceAction (physics)Process (computing)Strategic planningAction planStrategic partnership
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Priorities for Action serves as a provincial blueprint to complement, guide and support community and health authority efforts to manage the HIV/AIDS epidemic in British Columbia. This directional document will assist partners at all levels in the province in targeting HIV/AIDS program priorities over the next five years to achieve the best outcomes possible. A draft of Priorities for Action was presented at workshops held during March and April 2003 in partnership with Health Canada and each of British Columbia's six health authorities. Comment and feedback from health authority staff and community partners helped to shape the document’s subsequent revision. As the process for developing a provincial direction initially began, I committed to the creation of a document that focuses on actions driven by the best evidence from around the world. Priorities for Action incorporates lessons learned from many international jurisdictions, including those that have addressed HIV/AIDS with great success in resource-constrained environments. These experiences, as well as BC’s own successes, enable us to better focus our discussion and efforts within the HIV/AIDS sector to ensure the maximum effect in reducing the rate of new infections, improving treatment and services and ensuring a co-ordinated and collaborative approach among the many stakeholders involved in managing the HIV/AIDS epidemic. You will see these principles and best practices reflected in Priorities for Action, as well as targets we believe are achievable with concerted partnerships and strategic reallocation of resources.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2840.099

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputational Physics and Python ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207