Coordinated Approach to Continuity, Attachment and Panel in Primary Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Co mmon Vision fo r Alberta’ s Qu ali ty Im prov em ent Organization s Several Alberta organizations and programs have mandates that include clinical quality improvement as one aspect of their responsibility. Collectively, we strive to work efficiently toward common ends that are based in evidence and of priority to our funders. While our mandates differ we sometimes work on related issues. To promote coordination on these issues it can be useful to document a common vision of our desired ends. This document is the result of one such undertaking. It expresses our collective approach, experience and expertise to the related issues of continuity, attachment and panel in the context of primary care. The document serves as a basis for developing standardized tools and approaches, standardized messages to stakeholders and to inform the discussion with our respective funders.
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 | 0.136 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.043 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".