Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, there has been growing policy interest in the role of primary care within the Canadian health system, with the recognition that it has not been fully integrated and that its full potential has not been developed. The framework of Kates et al. starts to address some key organizational issues, by placing the patient, family and community at the centre of the healthcare system and by combining the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Triple Aim approach with the Institute of Medicine's six improvement aims. What this framework does not do is provide a model of how to organize or deliver primary care or demonstrate how policy makers and those responsible for designing the healthcare system should structure organizational models, payment systems or accountability structures. Kates et al. have provided a useful first step. We now require a commitment to act.
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 | 0.075 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.053 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.064 | 0.093 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.009 |
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".