MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3144387929 · doi:10.34105/j.kmel.2020.12.029

Patient journey mapping: Integrating digital technologies into the journey

2020· article· en· W3144387929 on OpenAlex
Elizabeth M. Borycki, André Kushniruk, Evangeline Wagner, Ryan Kletke

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Management & E-Learning An International Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsPatient carePatient safetyDigital healthHealth carePatient experienceDigital mappingKnowledge managementComputer sciencePsychologyMedicineNursingCartographyGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patient journey mapping represents a new way of reasoning about continuity of care, reducing wait times and improving patient safety. Patient journey mapping allows users such as health professionals, patients and policy makers to identify technologies that can be used to support patient care. Patient journey maps allow one to visualize a patient’s journey and at the same time understand, where gaps in patient care exist. In this paper we discuss a novel approach to patient journey mapping for supporting reasoning and decision making about how technological tools could be integrated into a patient’s health journey. The approach allows for reasoning surrounding technologies in the patent’s digital ecosystem.

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.

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 categoriesScience 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 score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.253 · 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