Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:The aim of this study was to determine the inter-rater agreement between physicians and nurses regarding eligibility for application of the Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCR) and assessment of the criteria of the CCR.Methods: In this observational study, nurses and physicians independently assessed the CCR criteria in a convenience sample of patients with potential C-spine injury.Data were entered onto separate data sheets.The outcomes of interest were the inter-rater agreement between nurse and physician regarding eligibility for application of the rule, for assessment of each component of the rule and for interpretation of the rule overall, assessed by kappa analysis.Results: In total, 88 cases were eligible for analysis.Physicians and nurses agreed on which patients were eligible for CCR application in 96.6% of cases.Inter-rater agreement for most CCR criteria was good (κ > 0.61), with the exception of midline tenderness (κ = 0.58) and range of motion, which most nurses did not test. Conclusion:This study shows that nurses have the potential to reliably apply the Canadian C-Spine Rule but require further training in the assessment of midline tenderness and range of motion. RÉSUMÉObjectif : Cette étude avait comme objectif de déterminer la concordance inter-évaluateurs entre les médecins et les infirmières quant à l'admissibilité à l'application de la Règle canadienne concernant la colonne cervicale (Canadian C-Spine Rule) (CCR) et à l'évaluation des critères de la CCR.Méthodes : Lors de cette étude d'observation, des infirmières et des médecins évaluèrent indépendamment les critères de la CCR au sein d'un échantillon de commodité de patients atteints d'une blessure potentielle à la colonne cervicale.Les données furent notées sur des fiches de données séparées.Les résultats étudiés furent la concordance inter-évaluateurs entre l'infirmière et le médecin concernant l'admissibilité à l'application de la règle, l'évaluation de chaque composante de la règle et l'interprétation de la règle dans son ensemble, évaluée à l'aide de l'analyse statistique kappa.Résultats : Au total, 88 cas furent jugés admissibles à l'analyse.Les médecins et les infirmières s'entendaient sur les patients chez qui la CCR devrait être appliquée dans 96,6 % des cas.Le niveau de concordance inter-évaluateurs pour la plupart des critères de la CCR était bon (κ > 0,61),
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 | 0.012 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".