Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dr Sawyer's experiences in Canada easily translate to the UK (Sawyer. Anaesthesia 2001; 56: 1006). I abandoned the use of anaesthetic rooms in 1993. Inducing anaesthesia, then disconnecting all monitoring and the breathing system, and taking the patient for an apnoeic perambulation on a sightseeing tour of the theatre suite is frankly barmy, if not downright hazardous. Objectively, if we indulge this practice, we could be accused of pandering to personal insecurity, or worse, some form of professional narcissism. What is the point of establishing minimum standards of monitoring, teaching our trainees that failure to adhere to these standards is a crucifixion offence, then encouraging the baffled trainee to suspend disbelief while we disregard all the rules and move the patient to the substantive anaesthetic venue? Inducing anaesthesia in theatre is in my experience safer, faster, and allows plenty of space for inserting lines without desterilizing the equipment in a cramped anaesthetic room. Moreover, after only a very short time, the surgeons were re-educated into not interfering with the patient until prepared for surgery. Indeed, many of the surgical trainees took to observing the mysterious rites of anaesthesia with a growing fascination, understanding, and dare I say it, respect? Several have since approached me for airway and ‘lines’ training, so I guess they must have enjoyed the anaesthetic floorshow. Several interesting spin offs have benefited patients. One unfortunate who suffered an anaphylactic reaction at induction owes his survival (unscathed) to the ready presence of plenty of pairs of hands, best equipment, monitoring and space that in-theatre induction afforded. Moreover, I enjoy sharing my disasters with the rest of the team – it is less stressful, not more stressful, and has led to more referrals of anaesthetic pre-assessment. The resource released by not having to equip anaesthetic rooms could be used for something of value: critical care beds, nurses to staff them and so on. Surely, in the interest of safety it is time to have a little more confidence in our profession, and emerge from the anaesthetic room into the daylight world of the operating theatre.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads 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".