MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7033505662

Rapid synthesis: Examining health hubs and their potential to inform Ontario Health Teams

2020· other· en· W7033505662 on OpenAlexafffundabout

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHuman auditory perception and evaluation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsQualitative researchPublic healthHealth careHealth services researchMEDLINEBest practice
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An in-depth synthesis of what is known based on the best available global research evidence (i.e., evidence syntheses) and local research evidence (i.e., single studies) as well as experiences from other countries and from Canadian provinces and territories about health hubs and their potential to inform Ontario Health Teams in response to a decision-makers’ request. This document was prepared in 60 business days using an ‘all hands on deck’ approach.

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)0.126
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.292
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.328
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1260.292
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0140.016
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.004

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman auditory perception and evaluation→French-language works237,207→