MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2975796618 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-d-19-00057

Mobile primary health care clinics for Indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States

2019· article· en· W2975796618 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hannah Beks, Geraldine Ewing, Rebecca Muir, James Charles, Yin Paradies, Robyn Clark, Vincent L. Versace

Bibliographic record

VenueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLIndigenousMEDLINEGrey literatureFamily medicineInclusion (mineral)Health careMedicineCochrane LibraryPsychological interventionGerontologyNursingAlternative medicinePsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to explore and examine the available evidence on mobile primary health care clinics for Indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. INTRODUCTION: Despite the evidence for the effectiveness of primary health care in improving health outcomes, accessing primary care services is often problematic for Indigenous populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. Improving the accessibility of primary health care services for Indigenous populations is considered essential to alleviating the burden of disease and improving well-being. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The review will consider literature that discusses the implementation of a mobile primary health clinic for Indigenous populations. Mobile primary health care clinics targeting Indigenous populations of all ages will be included in this review. Transportable clinics (e.g. van, truck or bus) fitted with health care equipment that deliver health services in a defined geographical area will be included. Only literature published in English from 1 January 2006 will be included. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and SocINDEX will be searched, as well as gray literature sources. The full-text of selected literature will be retrieved and assessed in detail against the inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. Data will be extracted by two independent reviewers, and a narrative summary will be provided on the objectives, concepts and results of the review question.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Systematic reviewhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.006
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.359 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation ReportsSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207