MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403323207 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4876155/v1

Quality priorities related to the management of type 2 diabetes in primary care: Results from the COMPAS+ quality improvement collaborative

2024· preprint· en· W4403323207 on OpenAlexaff
Dina Gaid, Guylaine Giasson, Isabelle Gaboury, Lise Houle, Géraldine Layani, Matthew Menear, Véronique Noël de Tilly, Marie‐Pascale Pomey, Brigitte Vachon

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut National d'Excellence en Santé et en Services SociauxHôpital Charles-Le MoyneUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Primary careQuality managementType 2 diabetesBusinessMedicineProcess managementOperations managementPsychologyDiabetes mellitusFamily medicineMarketingEconomicsEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.081
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.233
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0810.233
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.271
GPT teacher head0.564
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicClinical practice guidelines implementation→French-language works237,207→