MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2087229030 · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7348.1231

Health care for older people

2002· editorial· en· W2087229030 on OpenAlexaff
Paula A. Rochon

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2002
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of TorontoBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careOfficerOlder peopleMultidisciplinary approachRelevance (law)Theme (computing)PsychologyGerontologyNursingMedicinePolitical scienceSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to serious concerns about the health care provided to older people in Scotland the Scottish expert group on healthcare of older people, led by the chief medical officer, Dr E M Armstrong, has released an insightful report entitled Adding Life to Years .1 The charge of the group was to describe the major health problems that older people confront, explain their journey through the healthcare system, investigate potential ageism, and promote good practices. The articulate and comprehensive report identifies a series of themes. Four of these are outlined below. Specifically, the report promotes individual responsibility for health, advocates for primary care, identifies the benefits of multidisciplinary teams in the care of elderly people, and discourages ageism. As indicated by the supporting literature, these themes have international relevance. An older adult consulted for the report said: “A doctor can do only so much. We oldies must realise we are responsible for our own health.” Adding Life to Years is to be commended for promoting individual responsibility in health care. Encouraging older adults to be physically and mentally active and to reduce poor health habits is an important theme of …

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0190.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.012

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.433 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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