MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6959456345 · doi:10.11575/prism/10616

National Initiative for Telehealth Framework of Guidelines

2003· other· en· W6959456345 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2003
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIvey Foundation
KeywordsTelehealthSet (abstract data type)TelemedicineMEDLINEContent analysisOrganizational structure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Initiative of Telehealth Framework of Guidelines is the result of a national, multi-stakeholder, interdisciplinary collaboration and consists of a structured set of statements designed to assist individuals and organizations with the development of telehealth policy, procedures, guidelines, and/or standards. The document examines five main content areas related to telehealth: Clinical Standards and Outcomes, Human Resources, Organizational Readiness, Organizational Leadership, and Technology and Equipment.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0100.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.013

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→Same topicGenetic diversity and population structure→French-language works237,207→