MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407839470 · doi:10.3233/978-1-58603-979-0-198

Practical Considerations for the Implementation of Health Outcome Measures

2009· book-chapter· en· W4407839470 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutcome (game theory)Computer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The collection of health outcomes information is important for effective management of the health care system. The Health Outcomes for Better Information and Care (HOBIC) program is implementing a set of nurse-sensitive health outcome measures across the province of Ontario. This paper examines some of the opportunities and challenges of implementing measures across multiple organizations and multiple sectors of the health care system.

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)0.363
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.444
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3630.444
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0110.016
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0120.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.676
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.113 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informatics→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→