MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2899895966 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.180334

Engaging patients to select measures for a primary care audit and feedback initiative

2018· article· en· W2899895966 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Noah Ivers, Alies Maybee

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesCanadian Patient Safety InstituteWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditPrimary careHealth careKey (lock)MedicineIdeal (ethics)MEDLINEComputer scienceFamily medicineBusinessComputer securityAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

KEY POINTS To help health providers identify and close the gaps between ideal evidence-based practices and the care routinely received by patients, health systems often use audit and feedback, which involves reporting to health providers on their performance to highlight where improvement efforts

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)0.100
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.185
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1000.185
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→