MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289890870 · doi:10.3389/phrs.2022.1605082

Moving Forward With Integrated Care: The Use of Realist Approaches to Understand What Works, How, for Whom and Under Which Circumstances

2022· article· en· W4289890870 on OpenAlexaff
Isabelle Peytremann‐Bridevaux, Maura MacPhee

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic health reviews · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCARE CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthMedicinePsychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of our commentary is to raise the profile of alternate methodological approaches, specifically realist approaches, for advancing knowledge of and practice in healthcare innovations for diverse patient populations. We will use the example of literature reviews on integrated care for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

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)0.337
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.596
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3370.596
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.043
Scholarly communication0.0240.043
Open science0.0110.012
Research integrity0.0230.041
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.540
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.121 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic health reviewsSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207