MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2221865989 · doi:10.7759/cureus.381

Emergency Physicians Think in Spirals

2015· article· en· W2221865989 on OpenAlexafffund
Tia Renouf, D. Joel Whalen, Megan Pollard, Adam Dubrowski

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology
FundersMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentMnemonicPresentation (obstetrics)DispositionMedical educationMedical emergencySpiral (railway)NursingSurgeryEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As adult learners, junior clerks on core rotations in emergency medicine (EM) are expected to "own" their patients and follow them from presentation to disposition in the Emergency Department (ED). Traditionally, we teach clerks to present an exhaustive linear list of symptoms and signs to their preceptors. This does not apply well to the fast-paced ED setting. Mnemonics have been developed to teach clerks how to present succinctly and cohesively. To address the need for continual patient reassessment throughout the patient's journey in the ED, we propose a complimentary approach called SPIRAL.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsFrench-language works237,207