MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992619145 · doi:10.12968/bjha.2007.1.2.23374

Every healthcare assistant counts in Croydon PCT

2007· article· en· W1992619145 on OpenAlexaff
Sue Cressey

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Healthcare Assistants · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealthcare innovation and challenges
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forces College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careFeelingLoomingNursingBusinessPsychologyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At Croydon PCT, we ensure that healthcare assistants (HCAs) are valued members of the primary care team who are offered support and training that will support registration when it happens Development of knowledge and skills is essential for everyone providing healthcare today, not only to provide safe and effective care, but to help contribute to feeling a valued member of the team. With registration looming for HCAs this becomes an issue that will need addressing sooner than later. In Croydon we think we are on track.

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1070.012

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Healthcare AssistantsSame topicHealthcare innovation and challengesFrench-language works237,207