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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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