MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403910877 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2024.27430

Health Quality 5.0: What Does Co-Creation Have to Do With It?

2024· article· en· W4403910877 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Leslee Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicService and Product Innovation
Canadian institutionsCARE Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessQuality (philosophy)Best practiceQuality managementHealth administrationNursingProcess managementPublic relationsMedicineMarketingPublic healthPolitical scienceManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this latest article in Leslee Thompson's Health Quality 5.0 series, she discusses the slow progress of patient engagement in healthcare over the past two decades, emphasizing the need for co-creation where patients and providers collaborate equally. It explores the challenges of overcoming traditional power dynamics and integrating patient knowledge into healthcare systems. Highlighting examples from around the world, the article identifies five success factors for global impact and stresses the importance of a holistic, inclusive approach to healthcare transformation. Co-creation is presented as essential for building resilient, high-performing health systems centred on patients' needs and experiences.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicService and Product InnovationFrench-language works237,207