MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388406121 · doi:10.1177/08404704231208089

Leading patient-centric crisis preparedness in healthcare: Lessons from Ukraine

2023· article· en· W4388406121 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean-Francois Landre

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Healthcare and Medical Tourism
Canadian institutionsCanadian Armed Forces
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreparednessBusinessEconomic shortageContext (archaeology)Health careCrisis managementMedical emergencyAnalyticsPopulationQuality (philosophy)Public relationsEmergency managementMedicineEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceComputer scienceGovernment (linguistics)Data science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Challenges in the delivery of high-quality patient centric care in Canada is plagued by staff and medical supplies shortages and spiking burnout rates leading to closures of more than a thousand emergency rooms in 2023. A literature review was conducted to examine the crisis preparedness and responsiveness of healthcare establishments in Ukraine in a warfare context, with the intent of exacting recommendations to respond to shortages in Canadian hospitals. Utilizing queries on distinct databases, more than 17,500 entries were found, narrowed, and selected for review. Managerial implications for Canadian establishments include: (1) adapting a change management approach, (2) capitalizing on existing assets, resources, and networks, (3) recognizing cyclical patterns to prevent negative outcomes, (4) planning for and attending to the vulnerabilities of specific sub-population groups, (5) utilizing geolocated analytics, and (6) exploiting external expertise and volunteer network through tailored working conditions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.429
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 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicGlobal Healthcare and Medical TourismFrench-language works237,207