Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advancements in as well as patient and care provider amelioration with telehealth has made healthcare more accessible for those living in rural and remote areas. Often burdened by cost, geography, physical ability, weather, and availability of physicians, people living outside larger centers can have difficulty accessing the care they need. The Canadian Health Act states that"the primary objective of Canadian health care policy is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers", but many of these barriers still exists for many Canadians. Currently, telemedicine initiatives are taking place in British Columbia and have been well-received by both patients and healthcare providers. Inspired by such initiatives and the sparse and selective distribution of dermatologists in the province, implementing a novel technology-based platform is needed to provide "reasonable access" to dermatologists in underserviced areas. Currently, the use of telehealth for dermatology is not prevalent in common practice. Through speaking to primary care physicians working in northern and rural locations about their attitudes toward telehealth, we are hoping to understand the obstacles hindering the use of this technology in hopes to create a user-focused platform. In time, a "teledermatology" program could be of economic value and will ensure patient safety by providing more expedient access to care as well as reducing the harms associated with travel. As this technology progresses, telehealth will become commonplace in providing equitable healthcare for Canadians.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.008 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".