MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4367849836 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2023.27051

Adapting Our SCOPE: Lessons Learned from Spreading and Scaling Efforts to Integrate Care

2023· article· en· W4367849836 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Parisa Mehrfar, Jaclyn Martyn, Celia Laur, Noah Ivers, Aleisha Fernandes, Harpreet Bassi, Mohamed Alarakhia, Nadia Alam, Pauline Pariser

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsOntario Medical AssociationWestern UniversityUniversity of WaterlooWomen's College Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Scope of practicePrimary carePhoneFlexibility (engineering)BusinessBest practiceNursingPublic relationsDowntownScale (ratio)Health careMedicineMarketingPolitical scienceComputer scienceFamily medicineGeographyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SCOPE (Seamless Care Optimizing the Patient Experience) launched in 2012 to support primary care in downtown Toronto with live navigation and rapid access to acute and community care resources for primary care providers (PCPs) and their patients. Ten years later, over 1,800 PCPs across Ontario have signed up for SCOPE and over 48,000 interactions in the form of e-mail, fax, phone and secure messaging have been conducted. Case examples illustrate the ways in which SCOPE has been adapted across a range of Ontario Health Teams, including under-resourced, small urban and rural sites. Primary care engagement, change management strategies and flexibility to meet the individual needs of each site have been key factors in the successful spread and scale of SCOPE's services.

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)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
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 score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.013
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0050.011
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Quarterly→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→