MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7131648449 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18778721

Telehealth in Sierra Leone: Accessibility and Impact on Rural Populations

2003· article· en· W7131648449 on OpenAlexaff
Koroma Kamara, Sowe Foday, Bundu Sulemana, Jalloh Salifatu

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelehealthTelemedicineRural areaSample (material)Investment (military)The InternetHealth careFocus groupRural health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Telehealth services have emerged as a critical tool for improving healthcare accessibility in remote areas, particularly important in countries with limited infrastructure and resources. The research employed a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative data from surveys with qualitative insights gathered through focus group discussions. The sample included both urban and rural residents across different regions of the country. Telehealth services significantly improved access to healthcare for rural populations, with approximately 70% of respondents reporting an increase in consultations compared to traditional methods. However, challenges such as limited internet connectivity persisted. The findings suggest that while telehealth has enhanced accessibility, ongoing efforts are needed to address technological and infrastructural limitations. Policies should prioritise investment in telehealth infrastructure and training for healthcare providers to maximise the benefits of these services. Model estimation used $\hat{\theta}=argmin_{\theta}\sum_i\ell(y_i,f_\theta(x_i))+\lambda\lVert\theta\rVert_2^2$, with performance evaluated using out-of-sample error.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 topicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation→French-language works237,207→