MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086561168 · doi:10.1071/ah080626

The national Indigenous health performance measurement system

2008· review· en· W2086561168 on OpenAlexaff
Ian Anderson, Marcia Anderson, Janet Smylie

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Health Review · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPopulation healthContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Performance measurementPublic healthConceptual frameworkInformation systemHealth economicsProcess managementPublic relationsEconomic growthKnowledge managementBusinessMedicinePolitical scienceMarketingSociologyComputer scienceGeographyNursingEconomicsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reviews the development of the national Indigenous performance measurement system over the last decade. Data were collected from the published and unpublished literature and review of government websites, facilitated by key informant interviews which provided information about the policy context. A number of innovations have occurred over the last decade, including the development of a conceptual framework to underpin a system-wide approach to performance measurement that is aligned with nationally agreed strategic goals. The development of mechanisms to oversee Indigenous health strategy and health data development create formal mechanisms that potentially link data development and performance measurement priorities. Innovation in the development of processes to support health system performance improvement is evident, but this needs to be prioritised, particularly with respect to those components of the health system that are not Indigenous-specific.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.004

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 head0.446
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.095 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Health ReviewSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207