MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1937122842 · doi:10.5334/ijic.2246

PRISMA: Program of Research to Integrate the Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy. A system-level integration model in Quebec

2015· article· en· W1937122842 on OpenAlexaffabout
Margaret MacAdam

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntegrated careAutonomyAcronymProcess managementIncentiveHealth careBusinessNursingKnowledge managementOperations managementEngineering managementMedicineComputer scienceEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Program of Research to Integrate the Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy (PRISMA) began in Quebec in 1999. Evaluation results indicated that the PRISMA Project improved the system of care for the frail elderly at no additional cost. In 2001, the Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services made implementing the six features of the PRISMA approach a province-wide goal in the programme now known as RSIPA (French acronym). Extensive Province-wide progress has been made since then, but ongoing challenges include reducing unmet need for case management and home care services, creating incentives for increased physician participation in care planning and improving the computerized client chart, among others. PRISMA is the only evaluated international model of a coordination approach to integration and one of the few, if not the only, integration model to have been adopted at the system level by policy-makers.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.258
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations51
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Integrated CareSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207