Health Human Resources Guidelines: Minimum Staffing Standards and Role Descriptions for Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Healthcare Teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In cystic fibrosis clinics across Canada, the most common barrier that healthcare workers face when providing care to their patients is having too little time. The Health Human Resources Guidelines were developed to define specifically what amounts of time should be allocated for each discipline of cystic fibrosis clinical care and to provide a description of all the roles involved, reinforcing how these work together to provide comprehensive multidisciplinary care. With involvement from all cystic fibrosis clinics in Canada, through the use of a tailored survey, the Health Human Resources Guidelines are an exclusively Canadian document that has been developed for implementation across the country. The guidelines have been incorporated into a national Accreditation Site Visit program for use in evaluating and improving care across the country and have been distributed to all Canadian cystic fibrosis clinics. The guidelines provide hospital administrators with clear benchmarks for allocating personnel resources to the cystic fibrosis clinics hosted within their institutions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.066 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".