MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Telehealth in the Circumpolar North: A Perspective of Access and Connectivity

2024· article· en· W4402474469 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pradeeban Kathiravelu, David P. Moxley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCircumpolar starTelehealthPerspective (graphical)Computer scienceTelecommunicationsTelemedicinePolitical scienceHealth careGeologyOceanographyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Telehealth deployments enable access to a distant healthcare provider remotely through communication channels. Telehealth typically connects two endpoints, such as a patient site and a healthcare provider, often using end-user devices such as laptops and mobile devices connected to the Internet. Telehealth aims to reduce healthcare inequity for patients from remote locations lacking critical healthcare facilities. However, limited Internet access and the lack of computational resources in those regions prevent patients from utilizing telehealth effectively. The circumpolar north, consisting of Arctic regions such as Alaska, Northern Canada, Greenland, and Svalbard, has unstable or expensive access to the Internet despite being part of developed, well-connected countries. The distance from their country’s economic hubs and these territories’ vastness, coupled with their minimal population, pose challenges for telehealth and Internet access. This paper identifies the network, execution, and process challenges for equitable telehealth access and connectivity in the circumpolar north. We survey the state-of-the-art for potential solutions and research optimizations. We conclude the paper by discussing the evolving landscape in providing telehealth access to these remote communities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation→French-language works237,207→