MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024336812

Infoway's EHR User Engagement Strategy

2007· article· en· W3024336812 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lynn Nagle

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronicHealthcare · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsCanada Health Infoway
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelehealthMandateWork (physics)Stakeholder engagementBusinessStakeholderPublic relationsHealth careHealth informaticsPopulation healthPopulationKnowledge managementMedicineNursingTelemedicinePolitical scienceEngineeringComputer sciencePublic healthEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada Health Infoway (Infoway) was launched in 2001 following an agreement by Canada’s First Ministers to strengthen a Canada-wide health infostructure that would include the development and benefits of electronic healthcare solutions. With a goal to have an electronic health record (EHR) for 50% of all Canadians by population by 2010, Infoway is investing in some key areas of health information management (i.e., drug information, telehealth, laboratory and diagnostic imaging systems). Investments in systems to support the management of health information has necessitated a parallel investment in strategies to ensure that health professionals embrace these tools. The need to address the engagement of nurses, physicians and pharmacists in the use of EHR tools led to the creation of a Clinician Advisory team within Infoway. The mandate of this team is to liaise and work with relevant stakeholder communities to advance Infoway’s mission. More specifically, the team’s work is directed to

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.024

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.396 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronicHealthcareSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207