Evaluation of an online discussion forum for emergency practitioners
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge is a critical element in the delivery of quality healthcare. In a busy emergency department (ED) clinicians attempting clinically relevant discussion with their peers face multiple interruptions and a lack of sustained meaningful interactions. Information and communication technologies such as online discussion forums enable practitioners to share practice knowledge at times that fit into their daily workflow. We conducted an experiment in which we provided emergency clinicians with access to an asynchronous discussion forum as a medium to support development of an online social network for information exchange. The outcomes were evaluated using a social network perspective to better understand the knowledge seeking and sharing behaviors among rural and urban emergency practitioners participating in the online discussion forum. The online discussion forum created an opportunity for emergency practitioners from multiple ED sites to engage in dialogue around topics that were relevant to their practice learning needs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it