Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the number and type of providers and degree they work together to provide integrated chronic illness care for individuals with hepatitis C care in four small Canadian communities.Theory: A complexity theory-based model of front-line staff initiated partnerships for integrated care guided this descriptive comparative study. Methods:In 2008, front-line staff (nurses) in four hepatitis projects, initiated between 2001 and 2004, identified working relationships with multiple providers who were surveyed using measures of partnership structure and function.Data were analysed using descriptive statistics to determine partner characteristics, degree of integration and group functioning. Results and conclusions:The sample comprised 216 providers representing health, social and ancillary services.Sites operating for >5 years had the greatest number and diversity of partners.The sites were similar in the type of providers and quality of group functioning.Nurse-provider paired ratings for each site evidenced high agreement indicating relationship stability.The partners differed in mean depth of involvement (integration), and differences between expected minus observed involvement.Nurse-initiated relationships with multiple providers in response to client needs results in service integration.Future studies should include input from care recipients to determine how well the provider mix meets their needs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".