MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966193808 · doi:10.1177/1084822314536906

Measuring Home Care Caseloads

2014· article· en· W1966193808 on OpenAlex

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHome Health Care Management & Practice · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)Matching (statistics)Work (physics)Process (computing)Resource (disambiguation)Operations managementComputer scienceNursingProcess managementMedicineBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to caseloads that are increasing in numbers and acuity, Alberta Health Services developed the Caseload Intensity Tool (CIT). The development and testing process led to a valid and reliable tool that connects client clinical condition to clinician response. The CIT allows clinicians to discriminate between levels of client intensity quickly and accurately. The scores for each client are summarized first into a client intensity scale and then a caseload intensity scale. The CIT can facilitate caseload management including matching client needs to resources and improving staff resource management, for example, equitable caseloads. There is potential for the tool to validate the relatively invisible work of case managers making it understandable, measurable, and defensible during times of rising costs and budget restraint.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.837
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.361 · 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