MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964077304 · doi:10.32398/cjhp.v2i3.884

Primary Health Care and Aging

2004· article· en· W2964077304 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martha Peláez, Marilyn Rice

Bibliographic record

VenueCalifornian Journal of Health Promotion · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAging, Health, and Disability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTeamworkHealth careNursingMedicinePublic relationsGerontologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 21-25 February 2000, in San Jose, Costa Rica, a WHO Consultative Group was held on the topic of Primary Health Care for Older Persons, with representatives from 13 countries from around the world, as well as Headquarters and Regional offices of WHO and the private sector. In the policy statement that emerged from the meeting four basic principles were highlighted: universal accessibility and coverage on the basis of need, community and individual involvement, intersectoral action for health, and appropriate use of cost effective technologies in relation to the available resources. Three complementary integration functions are mentioned: functional with an integrated approach to the health needs of individuals over their life course taking precedence over episodic management of disease; organizational, with a focus on how health centers should function with interdisciplinary teams; and educational which addresses the knowledge and skills and attitudes needed by health professionals that will facilitate communication, networking, advocacy and mediation of resources. The proceedings go on to outline the objectives to be included in national plans on health of older people, as well as the extended benefits and outcomes to be expected from PHC strategies for older people. In promoting quality of care for older persons, positive and negative factors are mentioned, as are strategies to: stimulate interest in geriatric care, motivate general practitioners to focus on the care of elders, encourage teamwork among PHC staff, and encourage multi-sectoral collaboration in promoting the health of older persons. An example is provided of healthy ageing from Canada. The recommendations include defining and measuring an ageing friendly health center (with specific indicators for the latter), defining the role of the PHC team in promoting healthy ageing, characteristics that programs should have to promote “age friendly” services in the primary care setting, and outcome indicators for quality of care of elders at the PHC level.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.009

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCalifornian Journal of Health PromotionSame topicAging, Health, and DisabilityFrench-language works237,207