The multiple contexts of borders that impact telemedicine as a healthcare delivery solution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For five decades, telemedicine—the use of communication technologies to provide health care at a distance—has improved access to health care for individuals who have previously had limited access. With the increasing number of health challenges across the globe, such as growing costs and limited health resources in rural areas, telemedicine is poised to be a platform to improve these problems. This paper examines telemedicine's role in improving health care, and how it facilitates the redefining of borders. Examples of the way telemedicine has improved access to care for individuals living in remote locations are discussed, and these examples illustrate how telemedicine allows us to conceptualize political, geographical, technological, and economic borders in novel ways. Ethical issues, future directions, and policy considerations in telemedicine research are also highlighted. Notes Dean, College of Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State University, 287 Comm. Arts Bldg. East Lansing, MI 48824, USA | (517) 355–3410 | pwhitten@msu.edu Doctoral Student, Department of Communication, Michigan State University, 455 Communication Arts & Sciences Building, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA | cornacc1@msu.edu
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".