Boundary objects in clinical simulation and design of eHealth
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Development and implementation of eHealth is challenging due to the complexity of clinical work practices and organizations. Standardizing work processes and documentation procedures is one way of coping with these challenges, and acceptance of these initiatives and acceptance of the clinical information system are vital for success. Clinical simulation may be used as "boundary objects" and help transferring of knowledge between groups of stakeholders and help to better understand needs and requirements in other parts of the organization. This article presents a case study about design of electronic documentation templates for nurses' initial patient assessment, where clinical simulation was used as a boundary object and thereby achieved mutual clinical agreement on the content. Results showed that meetings prior to and in between workshops allowed all communities of practice an opportunity to voice their point of view and affect the final result. Implications of considering clinical simulations as boundary objects are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it