MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7038356604

HSE Your Service Your Say: Anonymised Complaints Casebook Q1 2019

2019· report· en· W7038356604 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) · 2019
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicBrazilian Legal Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasebookService (business)Quarter (Canadian coin)Service provider
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Welcome to the 2019 HSE complaints casebook covering the first quarter of the year. This casebook \npresents some of the various complaints investigated in that period and their outcomes. \nThe publication of this casebook is part of the HSE’s commitment to use complaints as a tool for learning \nand to facilitate the sharing of that learning. In addition, the publication of the casebook fulfils a \nrecommendation by the Ombudsman in his report, Learning to Get Better and further progresses the \nHSE’s promise to fully implement all recommendations from the Ombudsman’s report pertaining to the \nHSE by the end of 2019.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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 score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1870.075

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library)Same topicBrazilian Legal IssuesFrench-language works237,207