MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740597016 · doi:10.1002/kpm.1545

<scp>IT</scp>‐based clinical knowledge management in primary health care: A conceptual framework

2017· article· en· W2740597016 on OpenAlexaff
Louis Raymond, Guy Paré, Éric Maillet

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge and Process Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge managementBusinessPrimary careAbsorptive capacityHealth careProcess managementComputer scienceMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary health care medical practices have made sizable information technology investments in recent years, primarily deploying electronic medical record (EMR) systems as well as Web‐based e‐learning applications. The basic assumption here is that developing information technology‐based knowledge management capabilities may significantly improve the innovation and clinical performance of these organizations. Increasing uncertainty in their environment requires them to develop greater absorptive capacity (ACAP), that is, an organizational learning capability to deal with the external sources of this uncertainty. In applying ACAP theory to primary care settings, this study seeks to answer the following research questions: What are the e‐learning and EMR capabilities developed by primary care medical practices in response to increasing environmental uncertainty? To what extent does the development of an e‐learning capability influence the development of an EMR capability? To what extent does building ACAP contribute to positive outcomes in terms of medical practices' innovation and clinical performance?

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.018
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.407 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations25
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge and Process ManagementSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207