Measuring the degree of integration for an integrated service network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Integration involves the coordination of services provided by autonomous agencies and improves the organization and delivery of multiple services for target patients. Current measures generally do not distinguish between agencies' perception and expectation. We propose a method for quantifying the agencies' service integration. Using the data from the Children's Treatment Network (CTN), we aimed to measure the degree of integration for the CTN agencies in York and Simcoe. THEORY AND METHODS: We quantified the integration by the agreement between perceived and expected levels of involvement and calculated four scores from different perspectives for each agency. We used the average score to measure the global network integration and examined the sensitivity of the global score. RESULTS: Most agencies' integration scores were <65%. As measured by the agreement between every other agency's perception and expectation, the overall integration of CTN in Simcoe and York was 44% (95% CI: 39%-49%) and 52% (95% CI: 48%-56%), respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed that the global scores were robust. CONCLUSION: Our method extends existing measures of integration and possesses a good extent of validity. We can also apply the method in monitoring improvement and linking integration with other outcomes.
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 | 0.023 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".