MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2056886147 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2015.24126

Quality of Care: International Comparisons of Canadian Provinces

2014· article· en· W2056886147 on OpenAlexaffabout
Olga Krylova, Chelsea Taylor, Mark McPherson, Jennifer D’Silva, Katerina Gapanenko

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Health Information
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmarkingAccountabilityHealth informationBest practiceQuality (philosophy)Health careBusinessQuality managementHealth administrationEconomic growthPolitical scienceMarketingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is increasing interest in comparing Canada's health system internationally to enhance accountability, promote benchmarking and increase mutual learning. The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) developed an interactive web display using data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, CIHI and Statistics Canada.

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)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0140.035
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.443
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

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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Quarterly→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→