MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250290235 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2008.19923

Evidence Boost for Quality: Visiting-Specialist Services to Improve Access and Outcomes for Isolated Populations

2008· article· en· W4250290235 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCanadian Hydrographic Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careQuality (philosophy)Library scienceKnowledge translationSociologyPolitical scienceMedical educationPublic relationsMedicineKnowledge managementLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Healthcare policy research and translation. Peer reviewed. For health system managers, practitioners, politicians and their administrators, and educators and academics. Authors come from a broad range of disciplines including social sciences, humanities, ethics, law, management sciences, and knowledge translation. Edited by Dr. Jason M. Sutherland, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.153
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.409
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1530.409
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0150.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.337
GPT teacher head0.581
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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