MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968517142

Describing Health Service Platform Architectures: A Guiding Framework

2019· article· en· W2968517142 on OpenAlexaff
Lysanne Lessard, Mark de Reuver

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicService and Product Innovation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModular designArchitectureComputer scienceService (business)Service-oriented architectureSoftware engineeringHealth careModularity (biology)Computer architectureKnowledge managementProcess managementSystems engineeringData scienceEngineeringWorld Wide WebWeb serviceBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health service platforms (HSPs) facilitate new ways of delivering health care, in order to improve care effectiveness and efficiency. HSPs are a sub-type of digital platforms that have a different purpose compared to market-oriented platforms for product innovation or economic transactions. Hence, traditional descriptions of digital platform architecture, such as the layered modular architecture, may not be sufficient to capture the essential features of HSPs. We create an initial framework for describing HSP architectures in a manner that reflects their purpose, drawing from literature on Service-Dominant Logic and architectural patterns. The framework will be used to guide a multiple-case study of HSP architecture. The results of this research will extend current conceptualizations of digital platform architectures and provide a systematic approach for designing or evolving HSP platform architectures in a manner that better meets patients’ and other health care stakeholders’ needs.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0150.014
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association for Information SystemsSame topicService and Product InnovationFrench-language works237,207