MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2746549107 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2017.25227

Leading Practices in Alternate Levels of Care (ALC) Avoidance: A Standardized Approach

2017· article· en· W2746549107 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elaine Burr, Sandra Dickau

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsToronto East General HospitalHome and Community Care Support Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBest practiceHealth careSet (abstract data type)NursingBusinessMedicinePublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Providers across the healthcare system want to provide the right care, in the right place, in a timely manner. Patients listed as alternate level of care (ALC) are often not in the right place to receive the necessary care. In 2014, using a standardized approach, the Toronto Central Community Care Access Centre (CCAC), now Toronto Central Local Health Integration Network (LHIN), set out to reduce the number of ALC beds in hospitals to ensure that more people received the most appropriate level and type of care. Case studies cited in this article will highlight the successes that CCAC and its various partners have realized in developing and implementing strategies.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207