MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Defining remote health

2004· review· en· W2128208988 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
John Wakerman

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Rural Health · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Association of Emergency Physicians
KeywordsMultidisciplinary approachVariety (cybernetics)Context (archaeology)The InternetPublic relationsPublic healthGeographyMedicineNursingSociologyPolitical scienceWorld Wide WebComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective: To develop a definition of the discipline of Remote Health. Design: A broad literature search using key words and an Internet search of industry‐recognised web sites were carried out. Results: Fifty‐five relevant citations and nine web sites were reviewed, covering Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and United States. The papers offered a variety of definitions of geographical and practice‐based approaches to ‘remoteness’, and definitions of ‘remote and rural health’. Conclusions: None of the single current definitions in the literature adequately reflect all of the characteristics of Remote Health in Australia. A definition is offered: Remote Health is an emerging discipline with distinct sociological, historical and practice characteristics. Its practice in Australia is characterised by geographical, professional and, often, social isolation of practitioners; a strong multidisciplinary approach; overlapping and changing roles of team members; a relatively high degree of GP substitution; and practitioners requiring public health, emergency and extended clinical skills. These skills and remote health systems, need to be suited to working in a cross‐cultural context; serving small, dispersed and often highly mobile populations; serving populations with relatively high health needs; and a physical environment of climatic extremes. What this paper adds?: In Australia and internationally there are a variety of measures of rurality and remoteness, which have focused on geographical or medical practice‐based sociodemographic factors, often related to remuneration scales. With an increasing recognition of and interest in the distinction between ‘Rural Health’ and ‘Remote Health’, there needs to be a better understanding of the characteristics of the emerging discipline of Remote Health which distinguish it from Rural Health practice. This paper searched the international literature for a meaningful definition of Remote Health in the Australian context. There was not one single, appropriate definition, but the information uncovered has contributed to the development of a definition that can inform the work of educators, researchers and policy‐makers, and give appropriate recognition to Remote Health practitioners.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations137
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Rural HealthSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207