MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973865694 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2014.24026

Primary Care of Adults with Developmental Disabilities in Ontario

2014· article· en· W1973865694 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yona Lunsky, Robert Balogh, Virginie Cobigo, Barry Isaacs, Elizabeth Lin, Hélène Ouellette‐Kuntz

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDown syndrome and intellectual disability research
Canadian institutionsSurrey Place CentreCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careGeneral partnershipContext (archaeology)Primary careMedicinePopulationNursingGerontologyFamily medicinePsychologyEnvironmental healthBusinessPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The health status and healthcare of adults with developmental disabilities have not been well-studied in Ontario, due to the absence of population-based data. To address this deficit, the Health Care Access Research and Developmental Disabilities (H-CARDD) program - a provincial partnership of scientists, policymakers and clinicians - has used existing provincial-level administrative data to provide descriptive information on the health of adults with developmental disabilities and the quality of their primary care relative to other adults. H-CARDD's findings have revealed many gaps in the care of adults with developmental disabilities. While primary care providers are critical to achieving needed changes, the broader healthcare context and infrastructure also need to be considered.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicDown syndrome and intellectual disability researchFrench-language works237,207