Eastern Health: A case study on the need for public trust in health care communications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reputation of a large health care organization in Canada’s easternmost province, Newfoundland/Labrador, was shaken by a three-year controversy surrounding decisions made by leaders of the organization not to disclose that errors had been made in one of its laboratories. For breast cancer patients, the presence or absence of hormone receptors in tissue samples is vital since it often changes the choice of treatment — a choice that can have life-or-death implications. Although Eastern Health learned of its errors in May 2005, it was not until five months later, when media broke the story, that the organization started informing patients. In May 2007, court documents revealed that 42 percent of the test results were wrong and, in the interim, 108 of the affected patients had died. This case study reviews the impact on Eastern Health’s reputation and highlights the communication issues raised by the organization’s reluctance to release information. © Journal of Professional Communication, all rights reserved.
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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".