MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408045860 · doi:10.37964/cr24788

Evaluation of a provincial physician engagement initiative using established healthcare quality optimization frameworks

2025· article· en· W4408045860 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sarah Keyes, Paris‐Ann Ingledew, Andrea Pollock, Dan Le, Sharlene Gill, Tamara Shenkier, Lauren Jadis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physician Leadership · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careQuality (philosophy)Medical educationNursingMedicineBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Across Canada, many efforts have been put towards increasing physician engagement to bridge communication and collaboration between physicians and administrative leadership. One measure was the Facility Engagement Initiative (FEI) created in 2016 by Doctors of BC and the BC Ministry of Health, which has provided funding to over 70 provincial engagement groups. While many projects have been supported, there is no systematic approach or established tool to describe and evaluate these initiatives. This study presents a method of characterizing and evaluating physician engagement initiatives using projects funded by FEI through one medical society, the BC Cancer Medical Staff Engagement Society (MSES).

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.591
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.069 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physician LeadershipSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207