MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942389978 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-951-5-382

The eHealth Trust Model: A Patient Privacy Research Framework

2019· article· en· W2942389978 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordseHealthInternet privacyComputer sciencePatient privacyComputer securityBusinessHealth carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patient privacy concerns are often cited as a barrier to health information exchange (HIE) implementations; however, the current understanding of patient perspective is limited due to a fragmented approach to patient privacy research. The limited evidence suggests that the patient privacy perspective is context-dependent and may involve benefit-risk tradeoffs. A standardized approach to the contextual factors would allow for more consistent assessment, providing a better understanding or explanation of the contextual factors influencing the patient privacy perspective and their attitudes towards HIE. This paper describes the development of the eHealth Trust Model-an evidence-based theory-grounded conceptual framework intended to guide future patient privacy research.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.303 · 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