MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167337579 · doi:10.12927/hcq..16623

Current Strategies to Improve Patient Safety in Canada: An Overview of Federal and Provincial Initiatives

2004· review· en· W2167337579 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth A. Bonney, G. Ross Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsCambridge Memorial Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatient safetyHealth carePublic relationsBest practiceBusinessHealthcare policyNursingMedicinePublic administrationPolitical scienceHealth policyHealth care reformPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several major news stories in the past year have highlighted adverse events in Canadian healthcare and prompted questions about whether healthcare in Canada is safe and what is being done to improve it. While individual hospitals and regions are mounting patient safety efforts, these problems are systemic and require policy and organizational responses from governments and health regions, not just individual organizations.

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)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.018
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.352 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207