MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100258582 · doi:10.1093/pubmed/23.2.155

NHS Direct: review of activity data for the first year of operation at one site

2001· article· en· W2100258582 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Felicity Payne, Lynda Jessopp

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Health · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)WorryMedicineDemographyService (business)South eastFamily medicinePediatricsGeographyPsychiatryBusinessSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: NHS Direct was set up in 1998 and now covers all of England. One site in South East London, which went live in April 1999, has been studied to gain an insight into how NHS Direct is used and by whom. METHODS: Routine data from TAS was obtained from NHS Direct in South East London for its first year of operation. RESULTS: Data were collected on 56540 calls. Almost one-quarter of calls were for 0- to 5-year-olds. The service was busiest between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. and again between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. The majority of calls (68 per cent) were received during the out-of-hours period. Most calls to the service (56 per cent) are categorized with no urgency level, with 37 per cent of callers given advice on how to look after the problem themselves. Over the millennium celebration period the call volume tripled. However, calls tended to be less urgent, with more being from the older age groups. CONCLUSION: NHS Direct is an important service to parents of young children and can provide advice about when contact with another service is necessary to those who traditionally worry about this.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.318
GPT teacher head0.488
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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations24
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public HealthSame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207