MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W210380679 · doi:10.1177/175045890801800903

Noisiness in Operating Theatres: Nurses’ Perceptions and Potential Difficulty Communicating

2008· article· en· W210380679 on OpenAlexafffund
Bernadette Stringer, Ted Haines, John Oudyk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Perioperative Practice · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsCanada Auto WorkersMcMaster University
FundersWorkplace Safety and Insurance Board
KeywordsQUIETNoise (video)Operating theatresPerceptionAudiologyOccupational safety and healthHealth carePsychologyNoise levelNursingApplied psychologyMedical emergencyMedical educationMedicineHearing lossComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elevated operating theatre noise can be hazardous to patient safety and may cause occupational stress. In a nine-hospital study, background noise and average noise were measured, during operations in different subspecialties, and found to be higher than noise levels recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for hospital areas in which patient care takes place. In operations in which nurses had also answered a question about hearing 'quiet', 'normal', and 'loud' talking, speech interference levels were estimated and indicated that nurses and other personnel had to substantially raise their voices to be well understood.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations36
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Perioperative PracticeSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207