MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1759305487 · doi:10.1016/s0840-4704(10)60776-4

Information Systems for Healthcare: Why We Haven't Had More Success

2000· article· en· W1759305487 on OpenAlex
Kevin J. Leonard

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHavenHealth careHealthcare systemSafe havenBusinessKnowledge managementInternet privacyComputer scienceEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last number of years, I have often been asked: "Why haven't we had more success in implementing Information Technology (IT) in Healthcare?" Unfortunately, there is no simple answer to this question. The answer is usually heavily dependent on several factors that "define" the specific implementation in question--consequently, the answer is one comprised of a number of interrelated factors or components. In order to facilitate this answer process, this paper attempts to identify these individual answer components. At the very least, this will help simplify the process of answering future questions by referring to the components outlined herein. At most, in addition to providing a reference compendium for others, it will assist in increasing the solution implementation success rate by exploring the problem definition in detail: The first step in solving a problem is to have it fully articulated.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.356 · 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