MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183335537

Care of the elderly program at the University of Alberta: meeting the challenges of treating the aging population.

2014· article· en· W2183335537 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lesley Charles, Bonnie Dobbs, Jean Triscott, Rhianne McKay

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsCollege of Family Physicians of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachMedicineGeriatricsPopulation ageingHealth careAmbulatory carePopulationService (business)WorkforceNursingGerontologyFamily medicineMedical educationPolitical scienceBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PROBLEM ADDRESSED: The population is aging rapidly and there are implications for health care delivery in the face of few physicians specializing in care of the elderly (COE). OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM: To train physicians wishing to provide COE services. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The COE program at the University of Alberta in Edmonton is an enhanced skills diploma program lasting 6 months to 1 year, with core program requirements including geriatric inpatient care,geriatric psychiatry, ambulatory care, continuing care, and outreach. There is a longitudinal clinic component and a research project requirement. The program is designed to cover the 85 core competencies in the Can MEDS-Family Medicine roles. CONCLUSION: There is a need for COE physicians to provide clinical care as well as fill educational, administrative, and research roles to meet the health care needs of medically complex seniors. These physicians require alternative funding and a departmental home within a university if they are to provide an academic service.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207