MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098302256 · doi:10.1136/emj.2011.112250

A framework for measuring quality in the emergency department

2011· article· en· W2098302256 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEmergency Medicine Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePatient safetyQuality (philosophy)Medical emergencyEmergency departmentOutcome (game theory)Quality managementVariable (mathematics)MEDLINEHealth careOperations managementNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is increasing concern that medical care is of variable quality, with variable outcomes, safety, costs and experience for patients. Despite substantial efforts to improve patient safety, some studies suggest little evidence of reductions in adverse events. Furthermore, there is limited agreement about what outcomes are expected and whether increased expenditure results in a real improvement in outcome or experience. In emergency medicine, many countries have developed specific indicators to help drive improvements in patient care. Most of these are time based and there is a lack of consensus regarding which indicators are high priority and what an appropriate framework for measuring quality should look like.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.000

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 head0.485
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.048 · 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