MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047010531 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2020.26275

Building a Primary Care Community of Practice: SCOPE as a Platform for Care Integration and System Transformation

2020· article· en· W3047010531 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Pauline Pariser, Haley Gush, Noah Ivers, Steve Pomedli

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrassrootsScope (computer science)Primary careScope of practiceBest practiceNursingBusinessPrimary health carePublic relationsMedicineHealth carePolitical scienceFamily medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strong primary care plays a foundational role in a high-functioning health system. Primary care is the main entry point to the healthcare system for patients, but in many health systems, the majority of primary care practices and physicians are functionally disconnected from, and not meaningfully integrated with, specialist care, hospital resources or team-based allied professionals. Here, we detail how a grassroots program in the Greater Toronto Area, known as SCOPE (Seamless Care Optimizing the Patient Experience), has worked to build and grow a community of practice among physicians who were previously "unaffiliated" to provide streamlined access to specialist care and virtual team-based resources. Notably, through purposeful engagement efforts, this community of practice has led to new patient-facing initiatives that respond to primary care needs. This improved integration of primary care with both hospital-based resources and specialty services, along with the initiation of new services that address population needs, demonstrates the value of this type of purposeful engagement to develop a primary care community of practice.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.021
Scholarly communication0.0130.009
Open science0.0030.046
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.426
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

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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207