MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150097023 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2013.19497

Organizing Healthcare Delivery Systems for Persons with Ongoing Care Needs and Their Families: A Best Practices Framework

2013· article· en· W2150097023 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Marcus J. Hollander, Michael J. Prince

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsBest practiceHealthcare deliveryHealth careNursingHealth care deliveryBusinessPopulationQuality (philosophy)MedicinePublic relationsEnvironmental healthEconomic growthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How systems of care delivery are structured can have a major impact on their relative efficiency and on the quality of care provided to individuals. As the population continues to age, as more people are able to continue to live with disabilities or chronic conditions, and as demands continue from consumers and lobby groups to allow individuals to be more fully integrated into customary Canadian life, pressures to deal with the needs of persons with ongoing care requirements will only continue to mount.

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)0.075
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0750.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.006
Science and technology studies0.0130.023
Scholarly communication0.0340.019
Open science0.0120.013
Research integrity0.0150.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations49
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207