MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008162240 · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-7-s1-a5

Validating the Nordic assessment system/NASS – to the grouping of rehabilitation patients

2007· article· en· W2008162240 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Practices and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth informaticsMedicineHealth administrationNursing researchRehabilitationPublic healthQuality of Life ResearchMedical emergencyNursingPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Case-mix of the rehabilitation patients has been actual in many countries. Rehabilitation is delivered in multidisciplinary teams. Cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation work is of general interest. The definition rehabilitation and structure of the services varies between countries. Case-mix work on rehabilitation has been done previously at least in Australia, Canada and United States. The Nordic countries have a common interest. Therefore the Nordic Centre for Healthcare Classifications has published the first version of grouping logic and continues to work with the issue.

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.

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)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.578
Teacher spread0.473 · 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