Telehealth policy: Looking for global complementarity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Telehealth is gaining acceptance as a tool for bridging the local and global health-care divides. However, integrating telehealth into existing health infrastructures presents a daunting challenge for governments, policy makers, telehealth advocates and health-care workers. The development of specific inter-jurisdictional telehealth policies will significantly improve the ability to meet this challenge. In the policy context, one 'success' is the increasing number of jurisdictions addressing policy issues. However, policy decisions have largely been taken in isolation, within individual health institutions, regions, provinces/states or countries. This represents a failure of the current approach. Telehealth, by its very nature, has the ability to transgress existing geo-political boundaries. As a consequence, policy in any single jurisdiction may hamper or even cripple the ability of telehealth to fulfil its potential. Commonality--or at least complementarity--of approach to telehealth policy must be encouraged. To achieve this, it is essential to understand the current or anticipated regulatory constraints that may affect telehealth. We have begun a preliminary study of country-specific policy issues.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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.
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".