MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1422653739 · doi:10.1177/0840470415600130

Strategic clinical networks in Alberta

2015· review· en· W1422653739 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tom Noseworthy, Tracy Wasylak, Blair J. O’Neill

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandateChecklistBusinessWork (physics)Collaborative networkQuality (philosophy)Best practiceProcess managementMedicineHealth careOperations managementNursingKnowledge managementPsychologyComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In June 2012, Alberta Health Services introduced Strategic Clinical Networks (SCNs) as engines of innovation. The SCNs are collaborative clinical teams, with a provincial strategic mandate and with goals of achieving best outcomes, seeking greatest value for money and engaging clinicians in all aspects of the work. The SCNs are led by clinicians, driven by clinical needs, based on measurement and best evidence, and supported by research expertise, infrastructure, quality improvement, and analytic resources. Eleven SCNs are operational, with five others planned. Early measurable value is demonstrable in each. Examples include improving care and outcomes following stroke, reducing use of anti-psychotics in Long-Term Care (LTC), and improving surgical safety through effective implementation of the Safe Surgery Checklist.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.584
GPT teacher head0.608
Teacher spread0.024 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207