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

Primary Health Care and Aging

2004· article· en· W2964077304 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
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