MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140875399 · doi:10.12927/hcq..16683

How Do Patients and Physicians Rate Urgency of Care? A Comparison of Urgency Ratings for General Surgery

2002· article· en· W2140875399 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Rafferty, Frank Markel, Ian S. Macmillan, Jennifer Rodgers

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)BusinessMedicinePublic relationsNursingPsychologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The notion of uniform terms and conditions speaks to equity of access--that fair rules apply in obtaining medically necessary services. However, when demand for medical services outweighs the supply of these services, the issue of "fair rules" concerning who comes first or who is most in need is a hotly debated subject. This debate has focused not just on how long patients may have to wait for access, but also on the question of how caregivers decide the priority of providing care. Central to this discussion is the need to develop a transparent methodology that fairly prioritizes patients based on urgency; timely access to services and acceptability to all stakeholders.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.244
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.244
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207