Smartphones and Patient Care
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
Background Text messaging (texting) has become a routine medium of communication in society. However, its use among clinicians has not been fully characterized. We explored general surgery residents' practices and views on texting for patient-related communication. Methods An email survey was distributed to all general surgery residents at a large Canadian medical school. Results Overall, 46 (57%) of those surveyed responded. All used texting for patient-related communication. Eleven percent of residents did not have a password on their cell phone and 89% did not have encrypted phones. Texting was the most common way (41%) by which residents communicated routine patient-related information with staff physicians. Most (85%) residents agreed that texting enhances patient care. The majority (66%) did not know if their hospital had a policy on texting and were unaware of legislation surrounding texting in patient care (89%). Conclusions Most general surgery residents use texting for communication of routine patient-related care issues. However, they acknowledge concerns regarding the security of this medium.
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 | 0.000 | 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