Bibliographic record
Abstract
The healthcare systems of most developed nations face a common challenge: a substantial gap exists between the best possible care and the care routinely delivered. Numerous studies in the literature and reports from authoritative bodies, such as the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in the United States, have provided compelling and persuasive evidence that care is not consistently safe, timely, effective, equitable, efficient or patient-centred. A landmark study published in 2003 reported that Americans receive recommended care 54.9% of the time (McGlynn et al. 2003). The recent survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund of sicker adults in six countries - Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States - underscores the pervasive challenges of providing high-quality care. The differences between the six countries pale in contrast to the common theme of significant opportunities for improvement in all nations (Schoen et al. 2005).
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 | 0.025 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.036 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
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".