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
In this article we provide a reconceptualization of patient-centered health care practice through a collaborative person-centered model for enhanced patient safety. Twenty-one participants were selected and interviewed from the internationally diverse population of individuals attending the Chicago Patient Safety Workshop (CPSW) sponsored by Consumers Advancing Patient Safety (CAPS). Analysis of the participant transcripts revealed three findings related to patient experience: the impact and meaning of communication and relationship within the health care setting, trust and expectation for the patient and family with the health care provider, and the meaning and application of patient-centeredness. Researchers concluded that successful planning toward enhanced patient-centered care requires multiple perspectives, including the voices of the patient and family members who have experienced the trauma of preventable medical error. Collaborative initiatives such as the CPSW and CAPS offer a positive way forward for enhanced patient safety and quality of care.
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 | 0.028 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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