Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systems for the provision of healthcare need to be improved, since costs are already high and rising along with the needs of an aging population. In considering evaluations of two programs from opposite ends of the country, inferences can differ depending on the observer. While the demographic-healthcare time bomb we're faced with should have been obvious years ago, the need for positive action is upon us. The difficult issues are not so much errors in the past as they are (1) disingenuous suggestions that this isn't a cost problem, (2) a need to improve team behaviors and functions to increase the value of the care provided (i.e., quality for expenditure), (3) a lack of engagement and enthusiasm by providers for new systems and (4) most importantly, resistance to change brought from outside the care environment and the source and beneficiaries of the change not being primarily the local stakeholders. Care providers and recipients, as well as the governments funding healthcare will need to be convinced that we are successfully increasing healthcare value and improving patient outcomes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.057 | 0.068 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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".