MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908588778 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2018.25691

Healthcare (Dis)connect – Letter to the Editor Re: Breton et al. (2018)

2018· letter· fr· W2908588778 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
J. Ross Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2018
Typeletter
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careArtPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I applaud Breton et al. (2018) for their recent logic analysis on primary care centralized waiting lists (CWLs) in seven Canadian provinces, recently published in your journal. This is an important step towards better understanding the effectiveness of these approaches. Given the dire situation of primary care in many jurisdictions across Canada, CWLs deserve greater research attention. In particular, I agree with the authors' comments that future research should explore CWLs effectiveness from the patient perspective. I make these arguments as a researcher and a Canadian, who recently experienced the challenges with one of these systems first-hand.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0070.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.030

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.371 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207