MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128497761 · doi:10.12927/hcq..16479

Private Management of a Public Service: What Can Be Learned from the CROS Experience?

2003· article· en· W2128497761 on OpenAlexaffabout
Thomas M. McGowan

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Dose and Imaging
Canadian institutionsCanadian Blood ServicesCanadian Armed Forces
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiation oncologyReferralPrivate practiceMedicineService (business)Family medicineBusinessPrivate sectorGeneral surgeryRadiation therapyPolitical scienceSurgeryMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

n January 2001, Canadian Radiation Oncology Services (CROS) was awarded the first-ever contract for the private management of a publicly funded department of radiation oncology.Its goal was to help stop the referral of cancer patients from Ontario to the United States.Since April 1999, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) had been spending close to $375,000 every week to send 20 patients per week to the United States for radiation (for a total cost of $30 million).Immediately after CROS opened, breast cancer referrals stopped, and within three months, out-of-country referrals stopped completely.CROS saw its first patient in February 2001, and will see its last patient in August 2003.As of June 30, 2003, CROS has seen 2,018 patients, saving $30 million when compared to out-ofcountry referral.The success of CROS raises a number of questions, three of which are:

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0130.016
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicRadiation Dose and ImagingFrench-language works237,207