MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2725985406 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.200

FIRST-YEAR OUTCOMES OF THE MOHLTC-FUNDED COMMUNITY PARAMEDICINE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

2017· article· en· W2725985406 on OpenAlexaffabout
S. Sinha, Marie T. Nolan, Nadine E. Foster

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristian ministryVariety (cybernetics)MedicineNursingCommunity-based careFamily medicineHealth carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2014, Ontario’s Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) invested $6 million to support the development of 30 Community Paramedicine (CP) Demonstration Projects across the province. This investment supported the development of a variety of locally driven models that could allow paramedics to fill unique care gaps, and better integrate care for vulnerable patients in their communities. The 30 funded projects focused on activities related to conducting assessments and referrals, preventative home visits and Wellness Clinics. In the first 15 months, a total of 19,077 patients were enrolled across the 30 projects that engaged 1865 paramedics and 381 local primary, home and community care providers. Community paramedics completed 32,807 assessments and achieved a 14% overall decrease in the volume of 911 calls from patients enrolled more than six-months in a program. Therefore, community paramedicine activities have the potential to improve patient and system outcomes.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.470
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207