Times have Changed – Is it Time to Consider Restructuring the CAG?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the 2005 annual general meeting of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) where certain proposals for CAG bylaw revisions were tabled, the CAG Board decided to create an ad hoc committee to take a more comprehensive look at restructuring the CAG management, which in turn would result in proposals for bylaw amendments. A committee consisting of William Paterson, Des Leddin, Ronald Bridges, Mary Perdue, John Wallace and Paul Sinclair was formed. This committee endorsed the need to make fundamental changes in the structure of the CAG management to streamline the operations of the organization and better achieve its strategic goals. It was further agreed that the process for implementing change must involve broad consultation with the CAG Board and the membership. The present document represents the first step in this consultative process.
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 | 0.026 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
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".