MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2278094384 · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1634348

Teleconsultation: Rejected and Emerging Uses

2003· article· en· W2278094384 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods of Information in Medicine · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelemedicineProcess (computing)ShouldersMedicineHealth technologyHealth careMode (computer interface)Medical practiceMedical careMedical emergencyMedical educationNursingComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to analyse telemedicine as a new means to improve health care accessibility. METHOD: A case study design was used to understand how medical specialists perceived, made sense of, and appropriated a teleconsultation system. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The technology was used neither in the manner nor to the extent anticipated by its designers. A fundamental modification to the traditional medical consultation process has emerged. Unable to be used as a substitute to the traditional medical consultation process, the teleconsultation system imposes a greater burden on the shoulders of participating physicians who, after a few trials, returned to their traditional mode of practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.324 · 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