Bibliographic record
Abstract
2008 as an innovative vision for health system reform. The framework articulates a set of goals in which health system costs and healthcare quality must be balanced against the needs of the population and improved health outcomes for all.1 Since its inception, this balanced approach to health and healthcare has been a source of debate, striking a nerve amongst healthcare leaders, clinicians providing care, and the patients whose healthcare needs must be met.2 Is it truly feasible to reduce costs while improving the patient care experience? Can we move away from the deeply ingrained biomedical model to an evolved one that espouses the principles of population health and health equity? Since 2008, a groundswell of health organizations in the United States and Canada have been taking up the vision of the Triple Aim with increasing momentum.2,3 To provide
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.070 | 0.094 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".