MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Building Interorganizational Knowledge for Evidence-Based Health System Change

2002· article· en· W2320313344 on OpenAlexaffabout
Louise Lemieux‐Charles, Wendy McGuire, Ilsa N. Blidner

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Care Management Review · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)Knowledge managementEvidence-based practiceHealth careQuality (philosophy)BusinessEvidence-based medicineProcess managementMEDLINEComputer scienceNursingMedicinePolitical scienceAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective health services rely on a foundation of research-based evidence. While quality care improvements are dependent on the application of evidence, incorporating them into practice may be challenging. This article presents the results of a study of the diffusion of a complex evidence-based innovation initiated by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario.

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)0.178
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.183
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1780.183
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0140.008
Science and technology studies0.0080.022
Scholarly communication0.0240.032
Open science0.0060.024
Research integrity0.0090.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.722
GPT teacher head0.660
Teacher spread0.062 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations49
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Care Management ReviewSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207