MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2160244222 · doi:10.12927/hcpap.2007.19356

Can an Expanded and Integrated Occupational Health Service Help Buffer the Impact of a Global Influenza Outbreak in Healthcare Organizations?

2007· letter· en· W2160244222 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Michael Kerr

Bibliographic record

VenueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth carePreparednessInfluenza A virus subtype H5N1PandemicWorkforceOutbreakBusinessPublic relationsPolitical scienceMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Infectious disease (medical specialty)LawVirologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At first glance, the accompanying article by Silas et al. makes for a somewhat-curious read. The picture they paint of the possible risk of a global pandemic posed by the avian influenza virus H5N1 is indeed a chilling one, not only for the possible extent of the epidemic itself but also because of the likely burden it could place on an already thinly stretched healthcare workforce. It therefore raises a rather alarming contradiction. Given our recent experience of living through the consequences of the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Ontario and BC, one would think that we would be more than willing this time around to err on the side of caution and be as prepared as possible to deal with the next emerging infectious agent that comes our way. But, surprisingly, as is carefully outlined in Silas et al.'s paper, this does not seem to be the case. In a healthcare environment that is increasingly focused on the need for evidence upon which to base change in practice, are we possibly dragging our heels in raising our preparedness for a future pandemic? It is an interesting debate, and one that certainly merits further examination.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0830.042
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.007

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy→Same topicDisaster Response and Management→French-language works237,207→