MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173297735 · doi:10.1002/lrh2.10280

Developing a rapid evidence response to<scp>COVID</scp>‐19: The collaborative approach of Saskatchewan, Canada

2021· article· en· W3173297735 on OpenAlex

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueLearning Health Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsGovernment of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan Health Quality CouncilSaskatchewan Ministry of AgricultureUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan Health Authority
FundersSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
KeywordsGeneral partnershipPublic relationsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Political scienceBusinessPublic healthHealth carePandemicProfiling (computer programming)MedicineNursingComputer scienceInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The COVID-19 Evidence Support Team (CEST) was a provincial initiative that combined the support of policymakers, researchers, and clinical practitioners to initiate a new learning health cycle (LHS) in response to the pandemic. The primary aim of CEST was to produce and sustain the best available COVID-19 evidence to facilitate decision-making in Saskatchewan, Canada. To achieve this objective, four provincial organizations partnered to establish a single, data-driven system. Methods: The CEST partnership was driven by COVID-19 questions from Emergency Operational Committee (EOC) of the Saskatchewan Health Authority. CEST included three processes: (a) clarifying the nature and priority of COVID-19 policy and clinical questions; (b) providing Rapid Reviews (RRR) and Evidence Search Reports (ESR); and (c) seeking the requestors' evaluation of the product. A web-based repository, including a dashboard and database, was designed to house ESRs and RRRs and offered a common platform for clinicians, academics, leaders, and policymakers to find COVID-19 evidence. Results: In CEST's first year, 114 clinical and policy questions have been posed resulting in 135 ESRs and 108 RRRs. While most questions (41.3%) originated with the EOC, several other teams were assembled to address a myriad of questions related to areas such as long-term care, public health and prevention, infectious diseases, personal protective equipment, vulnerable populations, and Indigenous health. Initial challenges were mobilization of diverse partners and teams, remote work, lack of public access, and quality of emerging COVID-19 literature. Current challenges indicate the need for institutional commitment for CEST sustainability. Despite these challenges, the CEST provided the Saskatchewan LHS with a template for successful collaboration. Conclusions: The urgency of COVID-19 pandemic and the implementation of the CEST served to catalyze collaboration between different levels of a Saskatchewan LHS.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
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 head0.451
GPT teacher head0.582
Teacher spread0.131 · 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