A Method for Developing Data Quality Measures and Metrics for Primary Health Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The secondary use of primary care data has many potential applications. By using data from a local primary care organization, a method for developing data quality measures and metrics in primary care is presented as a case study. The method that was created included an exploratory meeting with a subject matter expert, the creation of a first draft of measures with the information management team, the discussion of the proposed measures with a focus group and a final data quality report encompassing all the collected feedback. The method was used to create rules and formulae to measures timeliness, completeness, accuracy and usefulness in the primary care ecosystem. Future work will involve completing a detailed quantitative analysis of the data quality measures calculated with the proposed metrics. In the future these measures can be broken down and compared on a monthly, professional and users basis to provide insight into the behavior and nuance of data quality in primary care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.081 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".