MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388294820 · doi:10.1177/08404704231207386

The necessity of healthcare supply chain resilience for crisis preparedness

2023· article· en· W4388294820 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alexandra Wright, Anne Snowdon, Michael Saunders

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPreparednessResilience (materials science)Health careSupply chainBusinessPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Psychological resilienceHealthcare systemMedicineMarketingEconomic growthEconomicsDiseasePsychologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadian provincial health systems and governments did not sufficiently consider healthcare supply chain in their crisis preparedness plans, leading to an exposed and vulnerable healthcare system. There have been many opportunities to learn from past Canadian and global crises, which have emphasized the importance of healthcare supply chain resilience in providing essential care to patients; however, considerations of healthcare supply chain resilience remain a significant gap in preparedness planning. Illustrated through the Canadian response to COVID-19 pandemic, this article will explore how healthcare supply chain resilience should be a necessary consideration in any crisis preparedness plans. Further, without this consideration of healthcare supply chain resilience, it is the person (the patient and healthcare worker), and especially vulnerable populations, that are most put at risk in the event of a future crisis.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.018
Scholarly communication0.0150.011
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207