MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033779505 · doi:10.1057/hs.2014.8

Knowledge sharing and health-care coordination: the role of creation and use brokers

2014· article· en· W2033779505 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Systems · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Knowledge managementHealth careKnowledge sharingBusinessPoint (geometry)NursingPublic relationsMedicineComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper arises from research that examined a health-care coordination improvement initiative that was focused on increasing knowledge sharing among a network of health-care workers involved in the care of children with complex medical needs. Part of this initiative involved a summary medical note (the Single Point of Care (SPOC)) that was paper-based and carried by parents between the specialists involved in their child’s care. The SPOC’s effectiveness is discussed through a knowledge-as-practice perspective, which focuses on the role of mediators (both material and human). Our analysis demonstrates that the SPOC’s effectiveness can be understood by looking at the combined roles of boundary objects and human brokers. We identify two distinct broker roles: creation brokers and use brokers. In discussing our case, we extend our analysis to suggest how these broker roles may also be useful in thinking about how to improve the effectiveness of (electronic) health record systems more generally – for researchers as well as for practitioners.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.367 · 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