MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013157281 · doi:10.1177/1460458204042233

The Impacts of Knowledge Management and Information Technology Advances on Public Health Decision-Making in 2010

2004· article· en· W2013157281 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Goddard, David L. Mowat, Christopher Corbett, Cordell Neudorf, Parminder Raina, Vic Sahai

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Informatics Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySaskatchewan Health AuthorityHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation and Communications TechnologyKnowledge managementPublic healthBusinessPublic relationsInformation managementInformation technologyPolitical scienceMedicineNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Population and public health programs in Canada in local/regional, provincial/ territorial and federal governments have been working together to adopt and to adapt modern information and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve program effectiveness. Effective public health is information intensive and the impact of emerging knowledge management and ICT solutions will be significant. To capture some of the current thinking on how knowledge management and ICT will benefit public health, a panel of Canadian public health professionals was convened to discuss opportunities for progress by 2010. Three broad areas were addressed: (1) information and knowledge management; (2) information technology; and (3) working together to improve public health with knowledge management and ICT opportunities.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.414 · 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 designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations17
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Informatics JournalSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207