MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patient perspectives on digital health

2024· book-chapter· en· W4403983059 on OpenAlex
Debra Maria Ruh

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Health · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital healthComputer sciencePsychologyPolitical scienceHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of digital health is a critical advancement in modern healthcare, offering unprecedented benefits for traditionally underserved populations , such as persons with disabilities and the elderly. Patient perspectives are essential in this transformative journey to ensure that such innovations are not only at the forefront of technology but are deeply human-centric, inclusive, and responsive to the varied needs of all individuals. By actively incorporating feedback from vulnerable patient groups into the development and implementation of digital health solutions, healthcare systems can evolve into more accessible, inclusive, and equitable entities. Incorporating the perspectives of patients, especially those facing the greatest barriers, is not merely an ethical imperative but a strategic approach to crafting a healthcare system that truly caters to all, ensuring that the digital health revolution leads to better health outcomes and a more inclusive society.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.030

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.340 · 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