MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2196323858 · doi:10.3138/jmvfh.1.1.3

A new resource to study the health of Veterans in Ontario

2015· article· en· W2196323858 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Alyson Mahar, Alice Aiken, Patti A. Groome, Paul Kurdyak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Military Veteran and Family Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
KeywordsVeterans AffairsMilitary serviceService (business)Library scienceResidencePsychologyManagementGerontologyPolitical scienceSociologyMedicineDemographyBusinessLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, population-based research describing the health and healthcare utilization of Veterans is limited and it is difficult to understand the health related issues Canadian Veterans experience. Through collaboration between the Departments of Public Health Sciences and the School of Rehabilitation Therapy at Queen’s University, the Canadian Institute for Military and Veteran Health Research, and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) in Toronto we have identified for the first time, a population-based method of studying the health and health services utilization of Veterans in Ontario. Data are gathered from existing national and provincial administrative healthcare datasets housed at ICES and linked to administrative codes for provincial healthcare collected by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The following is a brief introduction to some variables of interest in the dataset and its potential uses for future research.

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)0.005
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.014
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.003

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Military Veteran and Family HealthSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207