MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409117677 · doi:10.1186/s13584-025-00669-5

Israel should build capacity in implementation science

2025· article· en· W4409117677 on OpenAlexaff
Adam J. Rose, Sivan Spitzer, Moriah Ellen

Bibliographic record

VenueIsrael Journal of Health Policy Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapacity buildingHealth administrationHealth services researchHealth policyPublic healthInvestment (military)Quality (philosophy)Social policyHealth care reformPerspective (graphical)Health carePlan (archaeology)Public relationsBusinessMedicineComputer sciencePolitical scienceEconomicsNursingEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Implementation Science (IS) is a scientific discipline that has been in existence for approximately thirty years. The goal of this discipline is to develop and refine rigorous approaches to producing change in the health system, and thereby to shrink the quality gap between best practice and current practice more quickly and more completely than could occur through naturalistic change alone. MAIN BODY: In this perspective, we review two prominent examples of health systems that invested in building capacity for IS- the Veterans Affairs Health System and Intermountain Healthcare in the United States- and how this investment has catalyzed system-level improvements over time. We make the case that Israel should similarly invest in building IS capacity. CONCLUSION: Investing in building IS capacity does not produce quick results, and is not easy. Nevertheless, a plan to build IS capacity should be an important ingredient in our plan to improve Israel's health system over time.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.091
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0910.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.905
GPT teacher head0.822
Teacher spread0.083 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIsrael Journal of Health Policy ResearchSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207