Emergency medicine health advocacy: foundations for training and practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emergency physicians (EPs) are uniquely positioned to act as health advocates for individual patients, emergency department (ED) patient populations and the Canadian public. However, most ED practice environments do not encourage health advocacy, and staff EPs often do not feel adequately prepared to address many health-determinant issues. The mandate to provide health advocacy training to emergency medicine residents must be addressed in light of these challenges. This report defines the role of EPs as health advocates and summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the ED as a forum for advocacy. At the University of Toronto, we have developed a new curriculum using evidence-based ED initiatives, examples of Canadian EP advocacy, and a description of organizations involved in advocacy, and we have incorporated several principles of adult learning to increase learner investment, maximize relevancy for EPs and optimize retention into practice. Residents believe the curriculum is highly relevant, allowing them to recognize advocacy opportunities in their own practices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".