MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2285832850 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2015.123

Let There Be

2015· article· en· W2285832850 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
R Sourial, J Teitelbaum, C Bouchard, R Sanchez, M Boutin-caron, J Freder

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePatient carePatient satisfactionTurnaround timeNeurosurgerySet (abstract data type)Continuity of careNursingMedical emergencyHealth careOperations managementSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In 2014, the Montreal Neurological Hospital reorganized its stroke unit, grouping together all strokes serviced by Neurology/Neurosurgery to ensure continuity of care. This unprecedented change created a new interdisciplinary /interdepartmental team which required a new form of communication to facilitate information dissemination and patient care in a timely manner. Method: Unlike typical rounds, the purpose of the daily huddle is to briefly set the patients’ goals of the day. The huddles are attended by all interdisciplinary team members, lasting approximately 30 minutes. The Assistant Nurse Manager leads the huddle in the morning in the nursing station to discuss the main issues. The huddle outcomes were assessed by: Length of stay (LOS), turnaround time to implement discharge, patient/family and team satisfaction. Results: Length of stay decreased by 4 days, delay to application to disposition was <24 hours. Interdepartmental team stated satisfaction in sharing their expertise in their different domains. Concerns were expressed if the huddle LOS exceeded 30 minutes. Eighty (80%) percent of patients/ families experienced satisfaction that information provided was given in a caring/timely manner. Conclusion: Daily huddles improved LOS and team learning was enhanced. However, huddles need to be more concise.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.918

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2740.124

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques→Same topicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation→French-language works237,207→