MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133654141 · doi:10.1186/cc3775

The role of leadership in overcoming staff turnover in critical care.

2005· letter· en· W2133654141 on OpenAlexaff
Kelly Roy, Fabrice Brunet

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnoutWorkforceMedicineDiversity (politics)TurnoverIntensive careNursingHealth careWork (physics)Economic growthManagementIntensive care medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This commentary discusses Laporta and coworkers analysis of a case study on the causes of and solutions for staff turnover in an intensive care setting. Staff turnover is a significant issue for health care leaders due to the shrinking workforce in Western countries and an increased demand for intensive care services as the population ages. The commentary considers reasons for turnover such as burnout and generational diversity, and highlights the importance of a team work approach to address the issue of turnover.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0560.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.252
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207