MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2568701923 · doi:10.18192/uojm.v6i2.1544

The War on Language: Providing Culturally Appropriate Care to Syrian Refugees

2016· article· fr· W2568701923 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Meagan A Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Ottawa Journal of Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterpreting and Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsNOSM University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyrian refugeesRefugeeImmigrationPolitical scienceLanguage barrierChristian ministryHumanitiesHealth careMedicineEthnologySociologyArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACTOntario’s Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care released a document in January 2016 regarding medical care of Syrian refugees as an effort to support primary care providers in the care and early assessment of their new patients [1]. The fourteen-page document provides an overview of the transition to Ontario medical care, from the Immigration Medical Examination prior to the refugee’s entry into Canada, to health insurance coverage resources and information [1]. Health care providers may welcome this plethora of informa­tion, but the presence of a language barrier may prove to be the most considerable issue. RÉSUMÉEn janvier 2016, le ministère de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée de l’Ontario a publié un document au sujet des soins médicaux pour les réfugiés syriens, pour appuyer les fournisseurs de soins primaires lorsqu’ils soignent et effectuent l’évaluation initiale de leurs nouveaux patients [1]. Le document de quatorze pages fournit un survol de la transition vers les soins de santé ontariens, allant de l’examen médical aux fins d’immigration précédant l’entrée du réfugié au Canada, à de l’information sur les régimes d’assurance-maladie [1]. Les professionnels de la santé recevront sans doute favorablement cette abondance d’information, mais la présence d’une barrière linguistique pourrait se révéler comme étant le problème le plus substantiel.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Ottawa Journal of MedicineSame topicInterpreting and Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207