MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052162409 · doi:10.5737/1181912x143188191

Cartographier le cheminement, dans le système de soins, des patients atteints de cancer. Partie 1: Élaboration de la question de recherche

2004· article· fr· W2052162409 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jeff A. Sloan, Shannon D. Scott, Anne Nemecek, Paul Blood, Cheryl Trylinski, Heather Whittaker, Samy El Sayed, Jennifer Clinch, Kong Khoo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Oncology Nursing Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Il s’agit du premier article d’une série rapportant les résultats detravaux de recherche qui élaboraient, à partir des sources de données disponibles, un historique complet des interactions avec le système de santé de tous les patients diagnostiqués en 1990, au Manitoba, de tumeurs primitives mammaires, colorectales ou pulmonaires et ce, à partir d’un an avant le diagnostic jusqu’à deux ans après ce dernier. Cet article présente la motivation derrière cet axe de recherche ainsi que sa genèse. L’étude qui avait pour point de départ la question “Qu’est-ce qui arrive à la personne diagnostiquée d’un cancer?” s’est transformée en une initiative de recherche majeure englobant un large éventail de questions de recherche philosophiques et cliniques. Une équipe interdisciplinaire a élaboré en collaboration les méthodes opérationnelles permettant de combiner des sources de données existantes afin de présenter sous un format uniforme les antécédents des patients atteints de cancer.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.233
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.290 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Oncology Nursing JournalSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207