MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2410707601 · doi:10.17225/jhp.00035

Decision-support tool for telephone triage — the Canadian experience

2014· article· en· W2410707601 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lori Laudenbach

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Haemophilia Practice · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHaemophiliaTriagePharmacyTelephone surveyFamily medicineTelephone numberMedical emergencyTelephone callNursingPediatricsTelecommunicationsAdvertising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The concentration of expertise in haemophilia treatment centres means that patients in most countries live a considerable distance from their treatment centre. Telephone support between regular clinic visits is common practice. This article describes the six principles that broadly outline nurses’ accountabilities when providing care over the telephone and discusses how they have been applied in practice with the Canadian Association of Nurses in Hemophilia Care (CANHC) telephone guidelines.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Haemophilia PracticeSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207