MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2729047893 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.325

GERIATRIC PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE HOSPITAL

2017· article· en· W2729047893 on OpenAlexaff
Roger Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStaffingProcess (computing)Adaptation (eye)Service (business)AnalyticsInformaticsProcess managementComputer scienceHealth informaticsPlan (archaeology)Knowledge managementEngineering managementData scienceMedicineNursingEngineeringBusinessPublic healthPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The steps of developing a specialized geriatric program in the future hospital include initiating a high-level analysis, conducting an environmental scan, designing an operational plan, developing an inter-professional staffing model, implementing strategies to optimize servce, and evaluating the program. During this process, the program logic model, service-patient matrix, and patient segmentation matrix can be helpful tools. An inter-professional model of geriatric service is critical for program sustainability. The strategies to optimize patient-centred care must be feasible and aligned with paradigm-shifting innovations, such as personalized medicine (with integrated genomics and microbiomes platform) and big data analytics (health informatics). The geriatric program that is developed must be nimble enough for broader adaptation and dissemination, both within the hosptial and across the health system.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207