MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7106214225 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/b8k6g

Scoping Review Protocol: Healthcare Professionals’ Perspectives on Alternative Models of Genetic Healthcare Delivery

2025· other· W7106214225 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2025
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careScope (computer science)Healthcare deliveryHealth professionalsSystematic reviewHealthcare systemNarrative review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this scoping review is to provide an overview of published, peer-reviewed, and other literature that describes healthcare professionals’ perspectives on alternative models of healthcare delivery. We aim to determine the scope of existing literature on this subject, specifically in relation to genetic healthcare delivery. The goal of this review is to evaluate the perspectives of healthcare professionals regarding alternative models of healthcare delivery.

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)0.248
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.351
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.927

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2480.351
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.010
Bibliometrics0.0180.017
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0120.010
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0140.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0820.026

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.399 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207