MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988301604 · doi:10.12968/pnur.2006.17.3.20597

Our health, our say

2006· article· en· W1988301604 on OpenAlexaff
Lynn Young

Bibliographic record

VenuePractice Nursing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsRoyal Canadian Navy
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCriticismAction (physics)Primary careCompetition (biology)General practicePrimary health careHealth careWhite paperWhite (mutation)Plot (graphics)NursingPublic relationsMedicinePsychologyPolitical scienceLawFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The White Paper, Our Health, Our Care, Our Say (Department of Health, 2006), is being much discussed in primary care and with good reasons. The main criticism is that it is far too long—230 pages could have been reduced by 25% without losing any of the plot. Thankfully, there are no surprises, but it will act as a catalyst for opening up the market to competition in primary care. This, for the main part, is new territory for primary care folk, and we are already seeing action taking place which indicates that new players are moving in and taking over the manage-ment of traditional general practice.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.434 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePractice NursingSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207