遠隔保健医療支援システムの構築 : 保健医療学部テレヘルスプロジェクト活動報告1997
Bibliographic record
Abstract
テレヘルスは、マルチメディア通信技術等を用いて、情報の共有と保健医療サービスや質の高い教育を提供するための方法である。これは、医学のみならず、看護学、リハビリテーション学、薬学、歯学などの保健医療学全般を対象としている。いわゆる遠隔医療は、テレヘルスに包含されるものである。アルバータ大学では、CCHSテレヘルスセンターを1996年に開設し、州全体を網羅するテレヘルスネットワークを構築した。さらに1998年にはテレヘルスの研究開発を推進するためにテレヘルス技術研究所を設立した。札幌医科大学保健医療学部では、北海道におけるテレヘルスシステムを構築するためにテレヘルス推進委員会を組織した。本報告では、本委員会で行ったテレヘルスに関連する調査と実験について述べる。さらに、北海道のテレヘルスネットワーク構築に向けて果たさなければならない大学の役割について考察する。Telehealth is a means of sharing information and providing health care services and professional education using interactive video, audio, and other multimedia technologies. Telehealth covers not only medicine but also other health sciences such as nursing, rehabilitation sciences, pharmacy, oral health sciences. The so-called Telemedicine might be involved in Telehealth. The University of Alberta, which is one of the advocates of the Telehealth in the world, established the Coordinating Council of Health Sciences Telehealth Center in 1996. The center contributed to the establishment of the Telehealth network over the province, and expanded into the Telehealth Technology Research Institute (TTRI) in 1998 to spearhead the research and development aspects of Telehealth. The School of Health Sciences of Sapporo Medical University organized a committee named the Committee for promoting Telehealth, to develop a Telehealth System in Hokkaido. This committee is collaborating with Prof. Miyazaki, the director of TTRI, on the feasibility of a Telehealth network in Hokkaido. This paper intends to present the results of investigations and experiments concerning the Telehealth project. In addition, some roles that Sapporo Medical University should consider in the Telehealth network system in Hokkaido will be discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".