MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972598088 · doi:10.1037/fsh0000442

Patient access: How do we measure it?

2019· editorial· en· W2972598088 on OpenAlexaff
Jodi Polaha, Nadiya Sunderji

Bibliographic record

VenueFamilies Systems & Health · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsWaypoint Centre for Mental Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOPoint (geometry)Key (lock)Computer scienceMeasure (data warehouse)RhetoricData accessData sciencePsychologyKnowledge managementMEDLINEComputer securityDatabasePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this article is to introduce key definitions to patient access and a measurement approach, translated for a clinic-based research study or program evaluation. The authors hope this piece will provide those seeking to improve access with some basic starting points and replace rhetoric with rigor in evaluation. Issues discussed include defining access for measurement, measuring access, starting with the end point in mind, and using a logic model. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.206
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.206
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.013
Scholarly communication0.0130.021
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0170.034
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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 venueFamilies Systems & HealthSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207