MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109432779 · doi:10.1136/qshc.2005.014605

How can the principles of complexity science be applied to improve the coordination of care for complex pediatric patients?

2006· article· en· W2109432779 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Matlow

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Quality & Safety · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultidisciplinary approachMedicineComplexity scienceHealth careQuality (philosophy)Key (lock)NursingManagement scienceComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical and technological advances in medicine have resulted in more patients requiring multidisciplinary care and coordination of services. This is particularly challenging in pediatrics, given the dependency of children. Coordination of care is a key ingredient of quality care; when suboptimal, clinical outcomes and satisfaction can suffer. In this article we view coordination of care through the lens of complexity science in an effort to find new solutions to this healthcare challenge.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.020
Scholarly communication0.0100.019
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations65
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Quality & SafetySame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207