MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106364661 · doi:10.1093/heapol/czs115

Pilot-testing an applied competency-based approach to health human resources planning

2012· article· en· W2106364661 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gail Tomblin Murphy, Adrian MacKenzie, Rob Alder, Joanne M. Langley, Michael J. Hickey, Andrew Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Policy and Planning · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceBusinessContext (archaeology)Human resourcesFlexibility (engineering)PopulationHealth carePandemicSkill mixWorkforce planningProcess managementKnowledge managementComputer scienceMedicineEconomic growthCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Environmental healthDiseasePolitical scienceEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A competency-based approach to health human resources (HHR) planning is one that explicitly considers the spectrum of knowledge, skills and judgement (competencies) required for the health workforce based on the health needs of the relevant population in some specific circumstances. Such an approach is of particular benefit to planners challenged to make optimal use of limited HHR as it allows them to move beyond simply estimating numbers of certain professionals required and plan instead according to the unique mix of competencies available from the existing health workforce. This kind of flexibility is particularly valuable in contexts where healthcare providers are in short supply generally (e.g. in many developing countries) or temporarily due to a surge in need (e.g. a pandemic or other disease outbreak). A pilot application of this approach using the context of an influenza pandemic in one health district of Nova Scotia, Canada, is described, and key competency gaps identified. The approach is also being applied using other conditions in other Canadian jurisdictions and in Zambia.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Policy and PlanningSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207