Bibliographic record
Abstract
culture of safety as “an atmosphere of mutual trust in which all staff members can talk freely about safety problems and how to solve them, without fear of blame or punishment. ” The web site has many leadership and provider tips, strategies, and tools for enhancing safety. Safer Health Care Now (www.saferhealthcarenow.ca) in Canada is focused on the clinical interventions to enhance safety. Clearly, many hospitals are dedicating considerable resources to increase their patient safety and decrease the number of preventable adverse events but progress is slow and long term sustainability questionable. I think we need to take another look at what is required at a foundational level to create a culture of safety and the leadership required to achieve it. A closer look at the IHI definition shows the complexity of developing a culture of safety. IHI identifies that mutual trust is essential to improving patient safety in any organization. The word ‘mutual ’ suggests that it is at least a two way phenomenon and maybe multidimensional. The word
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 | 0.042 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.115 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".