MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W9761864 · doi:10.14236/jhi.v16i4.704

Adoption of information technology in primary care physicianoffices in New Zealand and Denmark, part 3: medical recordenvironment comparisons

2008· article· en· W9761864 on OpenAlex
Denis Protti, Tom Bowden, Ib Johansen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Innovation in Health Informatics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectronic medical recordPrimary careMedical recordElectronic health recordMedical informationInformation technologyMeaningful useHealth recordsMedicinePatient recordHealth information technologyFamily medicineHealth careBusinessMedical emergencyComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the third in a series of five papers about the use of computing technology in general practitioner (GP) practices in Denmark and New Zealand. This paper looks at the environments within which electronic medical records (EMRs) operate, including their functionality and the extent to which electronic communications are used to send and receive clinical information. It also introduces the notion of a longitudinal electronic health record (versus an EMR).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.319 · 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