MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389620819 · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2023.27237

Fairness for Whom? Learning Health Systems’ Approach to Equity in Healthcare

2023· article· en· W4389620819 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Nakia Lee‐Foon, Robert J. Reid, Adalsteinn Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare policy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioTrillium Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)Healthcare systemHealth equityHealth careBusinessComputer scienceEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many healthcare systems use "equity" as a catch-all term to underscore their commitment to delivering care matching users' needs. Despite its ubiquity, it is often haphazardly used and applied to care and improvement efforts. As the learning health systems (LHSs) approach gains prominence, LHS researchers have sought to embed equity into their work while navigating systems with differing views of equity. We examine several components of equity, its definitions within LHSs and knowledge from LHSs' equity approach that could be implemented across systems. We conclude by suggesting various ways in which readers can embed equity into their respective LHSs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.775
GPT teacher head0.737
Teacher spread0.038 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare policySame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207