MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6982194274

Health Workforce Innovations in Response to Major Medical Events or Disasters: A Scoping Review Protocol

2020· other· en· W6982194274 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkforceHealth careWorkforce planningWorkforce developmentProtocol (science)Resource (disambiguation)Foundation (evidence)Health services
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Health Workforce Partners (CHWP) has been asked by the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement (CFHI) to create an online resource containing innovative health workforce strategies that could help to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19. In addition to collecting COVID-19 specific health workforce innovations, a rapid scoping review of the published and grey literature will be conducted to collect workforce strategies that may have been reported in response to similar infectious outbreaks or natural disasters in the past.

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)0.095
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.111
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: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0950.111
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.013
Bibliometrics0.0270.019
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0080.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1220.024

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
GenreProtocol

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)→Same topicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies→French-language works237,207→