MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111012678 · doi:10.4324/9781315602127-5

Thinking Geographically About Primary Health Care

2016· book-chapter· en· W2111012678 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Healthcare and Medical Tourism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary carePrimary (astronomy)Primary health careGeographyMedicineEnvironmental healthFamily medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health care is produced by system inputs that interact with the population through various processes and result in health outcomes. PHC is unique because it tends to be a patient&s;s point of entry into health care systems, and such care is at the centre of a network of providers working within and across primary, secondary, tertiary acute and social care boundaries. Masuda and Crooks argue for an experiential approach&s; which privileges the role of human agency in supra-local encounters. Safran et al&s;.s seven defining characteristics of PHC include access, continuity, integration, comprehensiveness, whole-person orientation, clinical interaction, and sustained clinician-patient relationship. These appear to match a larger scale, group orientation to PHC practice. Safran et al seven defining characteristics of PHC, include access, continuity, integration, comprehensiveness, whole-person&s; orientation, clinical interaction, and sustained clinician-patient relationship. In Canada, health care in general and PHC in particular is the constitutional responsibility of the provincial governments.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.011
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.007

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.357 · 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGlobal Healthcare and Medical TourismFrench-language works237,207