MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1585094179 · doi:10.1093/pch/13.10.850

Ontario and the enhanced 18-month well-baby visit: Trying new approaches

2008· article· en· W1585094179 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robin Williams, Jean Clinton, Anne Biscaro

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityRegional Municipality of Niagara
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary carePremiseMedicineNursingFamily medicineQuality (philosophy)Medical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Ontario, the 18-month well-baby visit is the last scheduled primary care visit before school entry. Recognizing the importance of this visit and the role that primary care plays in developmental surveillance, an Ontario expert panel recommended enhancing the 18-month visit. Their recommendations are based on evidence from multiple disciplines, which underscore the reality that the quality of the early years experience establishes trajectories of health and well-being for children. An underlying premise of the recommendations is that when there are collaborations among parents, primary care, community health and child development services, the outcomes for children will be improved. The present article focuses on two Ontario pilot projects that were funded to discover how, in real life primary care settings, the recommendations could be implemented and outcomes measured. Findings and insights were significant, and future directions are clear, as the strategy for an enhanced 18-month well-baby visit is implemented in the future for Ontario.

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)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207