MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2315725918 · doi:10.12927/hcpap.2016.24508

System-Level Reform in Healthcare Delivery for Patients and Populations Living With Chronic Disease

2016· letter· en· W2315725918 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Richard Wedge, Douglas W Currie

Bibliographic record

VenueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Prince Edward IslandHealth PEI
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealthcare deliveryHealthcare systemChronic diseaseHealth careDiseaseDelivery systemHealth care deliveryProcess managementMedicineBusinessIntensive care medicineEconomic growthPathologyEconomicsPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Healthcare in Canada has generally not kept pace with the evolving needs of patients since the creation of medicare in the 1960s. Budgets for hospitals, physicians and prescription drugs make up the bulk of spending in health, despite the need for better prevention and management of chronic disease, the needed expansion of home-based care services and the call for reform of front-line primary care. Over the past decade, a number of Canadian health authorities have adopted the US-based Institute for Healthcare Improvement Triple Aim philosophy (better population health, better patient experience and better per capita cost of care) in order to build system-level change. The Atlantic Healthcare Collaboration was one attempt to initiate system-level reform in healthcare delivery for patients living with chronic disease.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0410.050
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.103 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→