Bibliographic record
Abstract
As EMS responders, we're challenged with complex patient care situations, and we often make decisions using past experiences, protocols and medical consultation to guide us through treatment "mazes." Using our natural problem-solving process, we tend to see a problem and think about similar past experiences, which we believe will help us implement a workable solution to the problem.(1,2,3) As we strive toward patient care excellence, however, we need to also look for the best solution for our patient care needs. Research continues to reveal that EMS responders may benefit from increasing their practice of critical thinking, problem-solving and decision-making in initial and continuing education.(4-13) Studies are finding that increased practice and exposure to triage, airway management and medication administration decision-making will allow us to achieve an increased quality of patient care.(7,14-22) Research has also found many reasons for patient care deficiencies, but a common theme is that EMS students and providers may not be getting enough practice or exposure to thinking "outside of the box" in difficult, critical-thinking scenarios.(12,14,18,20,21,23-25) This lack of exposure is why EMS educators should continue to challenge students with skills practice and competency assessments. Even with minimal time and practice in the classroom and clinical settings, EMS educators and instructors should infuse the curriculum with complex scenarios and problems to stimulate students' critical thinking and problem-solving skills.(26-30) This can be accomplished by using patient simulation, team-based thinking scenarios, realistic scenarios with variable outcomes and student-group-facilitated presentations.(12) All of these combined will have a greater meaning to students as they navigate through the many requirements to achieve competence and real-life experience in the patient care setting.(31) In response to this need, EMS educational materials are placing more emphasis on critical thinking and encouraging educators to challenge students to think through complex patient care situations.(28,32,33) THOUGHT PROCESS & DECISION-MAKING MODELS: These critical thinking and problem solving skills can't be taught by using only local protocols as gospel in the classroom, nor should we be teaching by a "cookbook" methodology alone.(12) Problem solving and decision-making processes in the public safety professions have developed and evolved over many years, allowing researchers to explore the thought processes decision-makers use when confronted with real-life situations.(1,2,34,35).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.990 | 0.991 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".