MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143542180 · doi:10.3747/co.21.1662

Exploring a “community of practice” methodology as a regional platform for large-scale collaboration in cancer surgery—the Ottawa approach

2014· article· en· W2143542180 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationCLARITYScale (ratio)MedicineHealth careCancer surgeryBest practiceKnowledge managementMedical educationNursingProcess managementCancerComputer scienceManagementBusinessPolitical scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pressing challenges have forced health care providers to rethink traditional silos and professional boundaries. Communities of practice (cops) have been identified as a means to share knowledge across silos and boundaries. However, clarity sufficient to enable their easy and uniform reproducibility is lacking, leading to a gap between cop conceptualization and implementation. This paper explores a cop structure and outlines a framework that is adaptable, measurable, and implementable across health disciplines in a regional cancer surgery program.

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 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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.843
GPT teacher head0.630
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