Electronic Health System Integration Framework for Secure M-Health Services: A Case of University of Nairobi Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article sought to design a secure framework that can be used in M-Health systems development. The researcher used the integrated information theory as a framework for enforcing system security as a holistic approach. To actualize this study, objectives that were meant to guide in carrying out the research were: To evaluate the significance of Confidentiality, Integrity and availability on the security of M-health systems and to develop a framework for secure integration of M-Health systems. The researcher used University of Nairobi Hospital because of ease of accessibility and financial resources available to conduct the research. The study adopted a cross section survey design methodology that included a sample size of 44 ICT personnel and users of University Health System at the University of Nairobi Hospital. Data collection methods were observation, conducting interviews and filling questionnaires that were administered to the target population in the University Hospital. The target population were handed the questionnaires and had them filled. The filled in questionnaires were then picked later from the respondents. SPSS version 23 was used for data analysis, then presented in frequency tables, bar charts, pie charts and standard deviation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".