MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387798790 · doi:10.1177/08404704231207509

The role of innovative technologies in reducing health system inequity

2023· article· en· W4387798790 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hamid Sadri, Neil D. Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSciencetech (Canada)Medtronic (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)Health careHealth equityBusinessHealthcare systemScarcityCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Healthcare deliveryPandemicKnowledge managementEconomic growthComputer sciencePolitical scienceMedicineEconomicsDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scarcity of Health Human Resources (HHR), regional disparities, and decentralized healthcare systems have profoundly affected health equity in Canada. Adequate HHR allocation is essential for equitable healthcare delivery, and the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the importance of resilient and culturally diverse organizational HHR. Geography and infrastructure shortcomings aggravate healthcare equity. This study examines the role of innovative technologies in reducing inequity and provides four practice-based examples in different therapeutic areas. Long-term solutions such as collaborative networks, infrastructure improvements, and effective HHR planning can mitigate current challenges. However, in the short and medium terms, advanced medical technologies, digital health, and artificial intelligence can reduce health inequities by improving access, reducing disparities, optimizing resource utilization, and providing skill development opportunities for healthcare professionals.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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