MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109322295 · doi:10.1258/135763307783247437

Future proofing telehealth in developing countries

2007· article· en· W2109322295 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard E. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Telemedicine and Telecare · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsTelehealthProcess (computing)Health informaticsConceptual frameworkProcess managementInformaticsTelemedicineHealth careBusinessOrder (exchange)Knowledge managementComputer sciencePolitical scienceEconomic growthSociologyEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is growing recognition of the need to integrate telehealth and health informatics applications to provide cohesive e-health solutions. This is best achieved by the development of a sound national e-health strategy with which national telehealth activities can be aligned in order to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of investment. Based on experience from site visits to various Asian and African countries, discussion and assessment of e-health initiatives there, several common principles and a logical sequence of steps have been identified. A conceptual framework has been drawn up, based on two components, six principles and a six-step process. The framework described can be considered a country-level, needs-assessment process that integrates telehealth and guides future national strategic e-health plans. It establishes a sound and defensible strategy that will shape and future-proof a country's e-health ambitions.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Telemedicine and TelecareSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207