MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6925050997 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/e954y

Conceptualization of health and healthcare equity within the Canadian cancer care sector: A rapid scoping review

2021· other· en· W6925050997 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationHealth careEquity (law)Health equityHealthcare systemHealth policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the cancer care system is increasingly recognized as a relevant site for health equity action, it is unclear how health and healthcare equity is being understood and taken up in this context. Our aim is to conduct a rapid scoping review to better understand how health and healthcare equity are conceptualized and discussed as a goal or aim within the Canadian cancer care sector.

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)0.137
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.276
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1370.276
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0380.046
Science and technology studies0.0090.010
Scholarly communication0.0200.012
Open science0.0070.011
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.325 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207