MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781195512 · doi:10.1177/0840470417716684

Quality in cancer care: Lessons from the Canadian partnership for quality radiotherapy

2017· article· en· W2781195512 on OpenAlexaffabout
Erika Brown, Michael Milosevic

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreCanadian Partnership Against Cancer
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipRadiation therapyQuality (philosophy)CancerMedicineRadiation treatment planningCancer treatmentBusinessHealth careNursingPolitical scienceSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increasing complexity of cancer treatment and the emergence of technologies that offer individualized therapy options for people being treated for the disease, cancer care professionals are facing greater demands for knowledge exchange and information input. The Canadian Partnership for Quality Radiotherapy was established in 2010 in response to such demands and has used both bottom-up and top-down approaches to successfully support improved program planning, treatment delivery, and patient care within the Canadian radiation treatment community. Focusing on shared priorities using this bilateral engagement is a lesson that can be applied broadly across the cancer 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.392 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicAdvances in Oncology and RadiotherapyFrench-language works237,207