MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603099584 · doi:10.12927/hcpap.2017.24998

Patient Engagement: The Quebec Path

2016· article· en· W2603099584 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipStakeholder engagementPatient careCommunity engagementPoliticsHealth carePatient experienceNursingHealth professionalsPatient-centered careStakeholderPublic relationsPolitical scienceMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The issue on "The Patient Experience in Ontario 2020: What is Possible?" taught us how Ontario is trying to shift to a consistent culture of patient engagement at all levels of its healthcare system, from clinical to organizational and political. In this commentary, the authors share some of the avenues that have been taken in Quebec to structure patient engagement in a comprehensive way within and across stakeholder and patient populations. The model selected in Quebec is based on partnership of care and services, which includes not only patient involvement, but also interprofessional collaboration among professionals (Pomey et al. 2015b, 2015c).

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.240 · 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