MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392605540 · doi:10.12927/hcpap.2024.27271

Enabling Connected Care with a Person-Centred Data Foundation

2024· article· en· W4392605540 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ann Chapman, Shannon Malovec, Michael Del Tatto, Mauree Aki Matsusaka, Jennifer Cordeiro, Meagan Mak

Bibliographic record

VenueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia HospitalProvincial Health Services AuthorityUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Institute for Health Information
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoundation (evidence)Health careInternet privacyInformation exchangePsychologyPublic relationsComputer scienceKnowledge managementNursingPolitical scienceMedicineLawTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Having the right information at the right time and at the fingertips of the right individuals is not just a necessity for a well-functioning healthcare system but it is also the difference between life and death for Canadians. It is particularly critical to enable improved access to and quality of care for equity-deserving individuals because these data eliminate blind spots for clinicians, policy makers and system planners. The COVID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on the health data challenges that exist across Canada and the tangible impact those have on the healthcare system's ability to meet the needs of underserved populations. It sparked unified urgency at the federal and provincial/territorial levels to build a learning health system powered by connected health data for clinical care, patient access, care organization operations, health system use and population/public health. Person-centric data content standards will lie at the foundation of Canada's learning health system, enabling the creation and exchange of data.

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)0.086
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.168
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0860.168
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0180.022
Open science0.0070.044
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.012

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 head0.543
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.018 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy→Same topicEthics in Clinical Research→French-language works237,207→