MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392589016 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2024.27254

The Community Paramedicine at Clinic Program: Improving Participant Health while Preserving Healthcare System Resources

2024· article· en· W4392589016 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Leena AlShenaiber, Guneet Mahal, Ricardo Angeles, Francine Marzanek-Lefebvre, Melissa Pirrie, Amelia Keenan, Gina Agarwal

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careNursingMedicinePsychological interventionEmergency departmentCommunity healthMedical emergencyPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vulnerable populations such as low-income older adults in social housing suffer from poor quality of life and are impacted by chronic diseases. These populations are also high users of emergency services, which contribute to high healthcare costs. Community-based, patient-centred interventions, such as community paramedicine (CP) programs, can address the healthcare gaps for these underserved populations. Community Paramedicine at Clinic (CP@clinic) is an innovative, evidence-based, chronic disease prevention/management program that improves patient health and quality of life, connects them with health and community services, preserves healthcare resources and yields cost savings for the emergency care system. The program also works with other community organizations, facilitating interprofessional engagement and supporting other disciplines in providing care. Known barriers to implementing CP programs highlight the importance of standard practices and training as exemplified by the CP@clinic program.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207