MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Canada: An External Quality Review Process—The Wellspring Model

2005· article· en· W2050462323 on OpenAlexaffabout
Esther Green, Eunice Gorman, Karen H. Bartlett, Laura Brooks, Cynthia B. Struthers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Healthcare Quality · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsCARE CanadaHospital for Sick ChildrenCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Quality (philosophy)BusinessCoping (psychology)Public relationsProcess managementCenter (category theory)PsychologyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wellspring is a group of cancer support centers in Ontario, Canada. The centers provide information, support, and coping-skills programs for people with cancer and their families. To ascertain that all centers provide the same high quality of programs, the board at Wellspring established a panel of external oncology experts and asked them to establish a process to review program quality in each center. This article outlines the process undertaken to provide quality improvement in a nonprofit charitable organization.

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)0.457
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.386
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4570.386
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.012
Science and technology studies0.0220.011
Scholarly communication0.0210.013
Open science0.0110.017
Research integrity0.0080.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.583
GPT teacher head0.653
Teacher spread0.070 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for Healthcare QualitySame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207