MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Explaining Diffusion Patterns for Complex Health Care Innovations

2002· article· en· W1991648785 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Louis Denis, Yann Hébert, Ann Langley, Daniel Lozeau, Louise‐Hélène Trottier

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Care Management Review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsÉcole Nationale d'Administration PubliqueUniversité de MontréalFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistribution (mathematics)Health carePower (physics)DiffusionBusinessPublic relationsPsychologyPublic economicsSociologyPolitical scienceEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why are some less solidly supported health care innovations widely adopted while others with apparently stronger scientific support remain underused? Drawing on four case studies, the authors argue that the way in which the distribution of benefits and risks map onto the interests, values, and power distribution of the adopting system is critical to understanding how innovations diffuse.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.468
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.009 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations405
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Care Management ReviewSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207