MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082151636 · doi:10.1016/s0840-4704(10)60271-2

Deciding Whether to Engage the Public on Health Care Issues

2008· article· en· W2082151636 on OpenAlexaff
Roger Chafe, Doreen Neville, Thomas Rathwell, Raisa Deber

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYPublic engagementPublic relationsMandatePublic healthHealth careFace (sociological concept)Political scienceBusinessSociologyMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health care decision-makers often face calls for greater public participation or see increasing public engagement as part of their organizational mandate. This article identifies six questions decision-makers must consider when deciding whether to formally engage the public or other stakeholders around a particular health care issue. These questions focus on (1) the clarity of the issue for public engagement, (2) the appropriateness of the issue for public engagement, (3) the extent to which there are viable options, (4) the role for the public, (5) whether the public likely want to be involved and (6) consideration of the expected advantages and disadvantages of public engagement.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.288
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207