MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214713788 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.220134

What problems in health care quality should we target as the world burns around us?

2022· letter· en· W4214713788 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Kaveh G Shojania

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2022
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsEquity (law)Health careFocus (optics)Quality (philosophy)Key (lock)MedicinePatient safetyMEDLINEMedical emergencyComputer scienceComputer securityPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[See related article at www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.211416][1] KEY POINTS In 2001, an influential report defined quality health care in terms of 6 domains: safety, effectiveness, timeliness, efficiency, patient-centredness and equity.[1][2] Physicians primarily focus on effectiveness, which

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0030.054
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.001

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 head0.366
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.146 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207