MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016317715 · doi:10.1186/cc5575

Emergency staff is in danger

2007· article· en· W2016317715 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Betül Gülalp, Özgür Karcıoğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMedical emergencyEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To investigate the ratio and characteristics of aggression, threat and physical violence directed towards staff in emergency departments as a model of state hospitals. A questionnaire were filled in by the staff working in the emergency department of three high-volume inner-city state hospitals. The individualized data collected were relevant to the pattern of violence, age, sex, number of years in the profession, nature of the job, and the behavioral characteristics of assailants, and outcome of incidents. The data were abstracted between 1 May and 31 May 2006. A total of 109 staff reports were reviewed. The relationship of aggression with sex, age and years of experience were insignificant ( P values were 0.464, 0.692, and 0.298, respectively), while profession was very significantly related ( P = 0.000). The relation between threat and sex is P = 0.311, experience 0.994, profession 0.326, age 0.278. The relationship of threat with sex, years of experience, profession and age were insignificant ( P values were 0.311, 0.994, 0.326, and 0.278, respectively). On the other hand, physical assault was found significantly related to sex, years of experience, profession and age ( P values were 0.042, 0.011, 0.000, and 0.000, respectively). Violence to the staff is common. There is not a significant relationship between aggression, threat and personal characters. However, male sex, >5 years experience, emergency doctor, ≥31 years of age are the risk factors for physical violence.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.005

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.411 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207