MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2278347241 · doi:10.1016/s1701-2163(15)30178-x

Learning from Adverse Events in Obstetrics: Is a Standardized Computer Tool an Effective Strategy for Root Cause Analysis?

2015· article· en· W2278347241 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Beth Murray‐Davis, Helen McDonald, Fiona Cross‐Sudworth, Rashid Ahmed, Julia Simioni, Sharon Dore, Michael Marrin, J. Angelo DeSantis, Nicholas Leyland, Jason Gardosi, Eileen K. Hutton, Sarah D. McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster Children's HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRoot cause analysisRoot (linguistics)ObstetricsAdverse effectMedical physicsIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.188
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.188
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology CanadaSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207