MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003312430 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2019.26075

What Is Missing from “Patient Oriented Research”? A View from Public Health Systems and Services

2019· article· en· W3003312430 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Bernie Pauly, Karen Urbanoski, Elizabeth Hartney, Sana Shahram, Lenora Marcellus, Bruce Wallace, Marjorie MacDonald, Trevor Hancock

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusRoyal Roads UniversityUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthHealth servicesData scienceComputer scienceMedicineNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patient-oriented research (POR) aims to increase patient engagement in health research to improve health research and health services. In Canada, the Strategies for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) framework provides guidance for conducting POR. We critically review the SPOR framework through the lens of public health systems and services research. The SPOR framework is primarily focused on engaging individual patients in health research without attention to broader structural forces that shape health and participation in healthcare systems. Shifting from patient to public involvement and from patient to community engagement and being explicit about the range of health research that SPOR encompasses would enhance the framework and strengthen the potential of SPOR to improve health systems through health protection, promotion and prevention of disease and injury.

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)0.341
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.309
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3410.309
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0150.153
Scholarly communication0.0430.090
Open science0.0100.023
Research integrity0.0430.078
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.715
GPT teacher head0.616
Teacher spread0.099 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreCommentary

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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207