MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203900138

Testing the Foundations: A Glimpse into Health Service Delivery in China during the Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic

2021· article· en· W3203900138 on OpenAlexaff
Saranya Naraentheraraja, Alex Zhou, Amber Kernaghan, Sharon Joseph, Alaa Ibrahim, Uche Ikenyei

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health: Annual Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicTelemedicineService delivery frameworkHealthcare deliveryCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Health careBusinessChinaService (business)Public healthPublic relationsMedicineMedical emergencyNursingPolitical scienceMarketingEconomic growthEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pandemics can severely impact the capability of a healthcare system, especially the availability of health service delivery. This paper analyzes China’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic by assessing its provision of health service delivery. The objectives of this review are to identify themes in health service delivery models from the Chinese response and suggest recommendations for strengthening future Chinese pandemic responses. Major themes were identified in the types of healthcare service delivery models that guided the Chinese COVID-19 response. These models include the increasing use of telemedicine, ‘internet hospitals’, and the use of Fangcang hospitals during the peak of the pandemic. Exploration of these themes has led to recommendations of creating a national registry to monitor healthcare services while leveraging telemedicine platforms to continue access to routine medical services for the public.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Health: Annual ReviewSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207