MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940517996 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2019.25795

The Regulatory Challenge of Mobile Health: Lessons for Canada

2019· review· fr· W2940517996 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2019
Typereview
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsmHealthBusinessInternet privacyHealth careMobile appsMobile technologyHealth benefitsMobile deviceRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceMedicineEconomic growthWorld Wide WebEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile health (mHealth) is the provision of health or medical services enabled by portable devices. This field is rapidly expanding as the global market for mobile devices grows. mHealth "apps" pose benefits and risks to their users that governments have attempted to address through regulation. There is substantial variability across regulatory bodies in the scope, specificity and robustness of mHealth regulations, with Canada's regulatory framework lacking in two major domains: (1) specificity of existing regulations for mHealth and (2) regulatory clarity for what apps require regulation. If Canada is to be a leader in digital health, it requires a new framework that encourages the growth of an mHealth market that can bring innovative solutions to contemporary healthcare challenges while maximizing user benefits and minimizing harms.

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.339 · 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