MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990336100 · doi:10.1191/1463423605pc252oa

Community-based research: a catalyst for transforming primary health care rhetoric into practice

2005· article· en· W1990336100 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marcia Hills, Jennifer Mullett

Bibliographic record

VenuePrimary Health Care Research & Development · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultidisciplinary approachPrimary careNursingPrimary health careProcess (computing)Public relationsService (business)Community healthHealth carePolitical scienceMedicineBusinessPublic healthFamily medicineComputer scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian health care system is under increased pressure to reform. While some advocates lobby for more physicians and more resources to fix the ailing system, many reports point to another potential solution – implementing primary health care (PHC). Implementing PHC will not be easy. Even though there is substantial evidence to support the efficacy and cost effectiveness of PHC, its implementation will require substantial changes in practice. Community-based research (CBR) has the potential to be the catalyst for the type of change that is required. A multidisciplinary, multisectoral inquiry team has been funded to use CBR to reconceptualize and transform PHC service delivery in British Columbia, Canada. Although the research project is in its initial phase, it is anticipated that the research will provide new, holistic, and comprehensive frameworks for practice. This paper describes the process used to bring about these changes.

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)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
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 score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0250.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.010
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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations12
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrimary Health Care Research & DevelopmentSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207