MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2473237869 · doi:10.1177/0840470416644930

One Client, One Team

2016· review· en· W2473237869 on OpenAlexaff
Stacey Daub, Jodeme Goldhar, Dipti Purbhoo

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsHome and Community Care Support Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careNursingPalliative careProcess managementBusinessKnowledge managementComputer scienceMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the implementation of the strategy and Integrated Client Care Program, a multi-level health system strategy to break down the barriers in a solid health system and a program to integrate care for populations with the most complex needs. Specific reference is made to two specialized programs, older adults with complex care needs and a palliative care program whose goal is to meet the needs of patients and their families in a community setting.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.011

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.389 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207