MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1973906430 · doi:10.12927/hcq..16678

It's High Time for Hospitals to Adopt Private Sector Marketing Strategies

2002· article· en· W1973906430 on OpenAlexaff
Tim Keenleyside

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsThinkpath Engineering Services (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)BusinessMarketingPublic relationsKey (lock)PerceptionPrivate sectorPublic sectorHealth carePolitical sciencePsychologyEconomicsEconomic growthComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To ensure ongoing and increased public support, healthcare institutions need to adopt strategies that will help them get their message to key target audiences. How well they play the marketing game can have a major impact on everything from funding levels to recruitment to public as well as government perception and support.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0180.011
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0110.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.010

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Quarterly→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→