MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2266228690 · doi:10.1177/0840470415626528

Gamification as a strategy to engage and motivate clinicians to improve care

2016· review· en· W2266228690 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Innovation CouncilThompson Rivers University
FundersFraser Health Authority
KeywordsAutonomyHealth careIdentification (biology)Compliance (psychology)PsychologyNursingMedicineSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approaching change through seeking commitment rather than requiring compliance is an effective way to promote desired behaviours in healthcare. Gamification was explored as a technique to engage clinicians in the adoption of sepsis identification and management tools. Positive extrinsic (eg, feedback and rewards) and intrinsic (eg, mastery, autonomy, relatedness, and purpose) motivators were integrated into a campaign to save lives, leading to a significant reduction in severe sepsis mortality and improvement in processes 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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.373 · 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