MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

‘Airway Alerts’. How UK anaesthetists organise, document and communicate difficult airway management*

2003· article· en· W2071916940 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinisteriet Sundhed ForebyggelseMedical Research CouncilSundhed og Sygdom, Det Frie Forskningsråd
KeywordsMedicineAirwayAirway managementDocumentationIntubationTracheal intubationIntensive care medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A questionnaire on organisation, documentation and communication of airway problems during anaesthesia was sent to 271 anaesthetic college tutors in the UK. Their responses were compared with three published recommendations. There was a 72% response rate (195/271). The recommendations of the American Society of Anaesthesiologists Task Force on the Management of the Difficult Airway were met by 71% of respondents; 2% met those suggested by the Canadian Airway Focus Group and 2% met those suggested in a standard UK textbook on difficulties in tracheal intubation. Guidelines for management of the difficult airway were available in 142 departments (73%), but only 41 (21%) had guidelines for communication and dissemination of information. We present an 'Airway Alert' scheme which has since been adopted by the Difficult Airway Society.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.229 · 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