What Would I Want For My Surgery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If you were to have an operation tomorrow, would you want your surgical team members to feel comfortable speaking up, to defy hierarchy, to interact with each other just as well as they perform technical aspects of the procedure? Would you want to feel like part of the team? Your answers to these admittedly leading questions are based on the culture of the surgical team and the interdependence of team members and are at the heart of a current debate around the surgical checklist's effectiveness. In British Columbia (BC), many individuals responded to the paper by Urbach et al. (2014) that described the minimal impact on patient mortality after implementation of the surgical safety checklist in Ontario. They wrote to the Surgical Quality Action Network (SQAN) to express their perspectives, and interestingly, some refuted and others supported the conclusions. Given the strong reaction this study created in the surgical community, a number of key stakeholders have prepared a response in order to provide another perspective to the article and emphasize the checklist's value for improving the culture of surgical teams.
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 | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.016 |
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".