Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare provision for acutely unwell or injured children in the UK is changing fast. Paediatric emergency medicine (PEM) is now a recognised subspeciality for certification of completion of training for consultants in either paediatrics or emergency medicine. Facilities for children in emergency departments (EDs) have improved since 2000 (following central government funding). At the same time the case mix of children attending EDs is changing, with less serious illness or injury and more children with minor, self-limiting conditions being brought by parents and carers who find the lottery of primary care arrangements confusing, inaccessible or inadequate (particularly out of hours). Add to this the political changes which include the 4 h emergency target, Modernising Medical Careers, the European Working Time Directive effects on doctors’ rotas, continuing reconfiguration of services towards centralisation of specialist services (which affects EDs and paediatric units), and Payment by Results tariffs which can result in some perverse incentives around acute admissions to hospital, and we see a changing landscape. As a subspeciality with an ED-based infrastructure, PEM does not exist in Europe. The USA is 10 or so years ahead of the UK in developing PEM medical and nursing training, while Canada and Australia are roughly on a par with the UK. There are interesting differences in medical training, but also a large degree of overlap in both training and practice in these four countries.1 In 1999 a set of standards was published by an intercollegiate working party under the auspices of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH). The document Accident and emergency services for children ,2 often known as “the red book”, contained recommendations which were practical and feasible. However, a survey in 2005 showed that many EDs were still falling far short of the recommended standards.3 In 2007 …
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.140 | 0.025 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".