MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103875295 · doi:10.1503/cjs.024811

The Role 3 Multinational Medical Unit at Kandahar Airfield 2005–2010

2011· article· en· W2103875295 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ronald Brisebois

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Armed Forces
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinational corporationSoftware deploymentPreparednessMedicineUnit (ring theory)Medical emergencyOperations managementOperations researchManagementEngineeringLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In late 2005, Canadian Forces Health Services (CFHS) was tasked with the command of the NATO Role 3 Multinational Medical Unit (R3MMU) on Kandahar Airfield in southern Afghanistan. Preparations drew on past experience and planning. Eight complete hospital contingents were trained and deployed in rotation. Near-reality simulation training was undertaken with the combat brigade, including complete deployment of the field hospital in the exercise area. Standard operating procedures (SOP) were developed and applied by each rotation so successfully that they were adopted by the new command in late 2009. The Canadian period at R3MMU had the highest survival rate ever recorded for victims of war. Lessons learned are being applied among victims of the conflict and trauma. The experience of the R3MMU was used to successfully deploy a hospital as part of the earthquake relief effort in Haiti in 2010.The training protocols and SOP are being applied to disaster preparedness in Canadian civilian hospitals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.002

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations29
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207