MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1911556269 · doi:10.1370/afm.1129

MODEST BUT IMPORTANT PROGRESS IN PRIMARY CARE RESEARCH FUNDING: THE CANADIAN EXPERIENCE

2010· article· en· W1911556269 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard H. Glazier

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Family Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCollege of Family Physicians of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePrimary careFamily medicinePrimary health careHealth careNursingMEDLINEEconomic growthEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In common with the United States, Canadian primary care research has long been neglected and under-funded. This situation has persisted despite ample evidence of the key role primary care plays in producing good health outcomes, reducing disparities and controlling costs. Like our US counterparts,

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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Incentives · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.013
Science and technology studies0.0160.009
Scholarly communication0.0140.004
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.555
GPT teacher head0.590
Teacher spread0.036 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainIncentives
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of Family MedicineSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207