MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008020746 · doi:10.1016/s0840-4704(10)60591-1

Collaborative Practice: A Strategy to Improve the Relevance of Health Services Research

2002· article· en· W2008020746 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Brazil, Stuart MacLeod, B. Ross Guest

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelevance (law)Value (mathematics)Health careKnowledge managementHealth servicesBusinessMedicineComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health services research has emerged as a tool for decision makers to make services more effective and efficient. While its value as a basis for decision making is well established, the incorporation of such evidence into decision making remains inconsistent. To this end, strengthening collaborative relationships between researchers and healthcare decision makers has been identified as a significant strategy for putting research evidence into 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 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)0.408
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.528
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4080.528
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0180.011
Science and technology studies0.0150.025
Scholarly communication0.0360.052
Open science0.0120.070
Research integrity0.0320.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.297
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.197 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207