MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908791955

2015 Australian guidelines for the protection of health information

2015· article· en· W2908791955 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Croll, Patricia Williams, Emma Hossack

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal of Paramedicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth informationBusinessInternet privacyPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceHealth careLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The HISA Board of Directors is pleased to introduce HISA Guidelines for the Protection of Health Information, 2015 edition.\nThe 2015 edition of HISA’s Guidelines is the first publication of this work. It has been adapted under licence from the well regarded COACH Guidelines (2013) produced by COACH: Canada’s Health Informatics Association. All the contributors are experienced professionals who are actively engaged in the practice of privacy and security of health information locally, nationally, and internationally. The contributors have revised and updated an established and practical set of guidelines that are not only based on accepted standards and principles, but also pragmatic and easy to implement for any Australian healthcare professional or healthcare organisation.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.719
GPT teacher head0.627
Teacher spread0.092 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian Journal of ParamedicineSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207