MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282835667 · doi:10.3389/fresc.2022.892038

Challenging Health Service Delivery Models to Improve Access to Physical Therapy in Rural, Remote and Northern Communities

2022· article· en· W4282835667 on OpenAlexaffabout
Liris Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsYukon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService delivery frameworkIndigenousPublic relationsService (business)Rural areaHealth careMedicineBusinessNursingPolitical scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective rural, remote and northern physical therapy services are an important component of health care. Providing these services with limited financial and human resources can present many challenges. Indigenous communities also have unique needs that must be considered when providing health care. Most current service delivery models are based in Western medicine practices and most often, do not account for the local, political, cultural and spiritual needs of communities. In this perspective article, I discuss the challenges of providing these services in rural Yukon to many small First Nation communities. Relationship building is paramount to effective and meaningful health care programs, and this means a change in current practice approaches. We need to challenge the delivery models and be open to other ways of knowing, beyond the Western biomedical approach that is the foundation of our profession. It is imperative that physical therapists, health care providers and funders seek new and innovative ways to provide services to the rural, remote and northern communities while ensuring a culturally humble approach.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Rehabilitation SciencesSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207