MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096832036 · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004029

Response to: ‘working smarter, not harder’ by Professor Iedema

2015· letter· en· W2096832036 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher William Hayes, Paul B. Batalden, Donald A. Goldmann

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Quality & Safety · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGadgetWorkflowSet (abstract data type)Work (physics)Health careMedicineKnowledge managementMedical educationInternet privacyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Professor Iedema for highlighting that a gap exists in providers having the skillset to ‘work smarter.’1 We agree that novel approaches to healthcare improvement that move beyond gadget-based solutions and that require a new set of skills of providers and provider organisations are required. The suggestion of videotaping one's performance to review how the system (and its participants) currently operates and to reflect on how to (re-) design their workflows is intriguing. It …

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Quality & SafetySame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207