Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much has changed in the year since we wrote the first draft of the lead essay in this issue.There has been a growing interest in patient-centred care, rapid technology development, increasing adoption of digital health by clinicians and consumers and a vibrant dialogue about the associated policy implications and options.We thank all of the authors of commentaries in this issue of HealthcarePapers for contributing to this discourse.Each brings valuable perspectives to the important conversations that are needed in an area that is evolving quickly and has the potential to fundamentally change how several types of healthcare are delivered.As Adalsteinn Brown (2014) points out in his introduction, the commentators generally agree that Canadians are ready to embrace a range of consumer health solutions.This was perhaps most succinctly summed up by Shirlee Sharkey's title, "All Aboard!" (2014).
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 | 0.014 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.010 |
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".