MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047933476 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2020.26283

Coordination of Care Could Improve: Canadian Results from the Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Primary Care Physicians

2020· article· en· W3047933476 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Vanessa Sovran, Alison Ytsma, Liudmila Husak, Tracy Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Health Information
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommonwealthPrimary carePollingHealth careFamily medicineNursingMedicineHealth services researchBusinessPolitical sciencePublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Care coordination is a critical component of a strong primary care system. The Commonwealth Fund (CMWF) 2019 International Health Policy Survey of Primary Care Physicians polled physicians in 11 countries, allowing international and pan-Canadian comparisons of physicians' perspectives in this area. Canadian physicians indicated that there was room for improvement in coordinating care with those outside their practice, particularly specialists, home-based care providers and social services. Opportunities may arise in learning from higher-performing CMWF countries and in adopting new information technologies that are growing methods of facilitating communication across care settings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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