MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2580182258 · doi:10.18849/ve.v2i1.95

Embedding EBVM into Practice

2017· article· en· W2580182258 on OpenAlexaff
Bradley Viner

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Evidence · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical PracticeAuditConcordanceIconBest practiceMedicineComputer sciencePolitical scienceFamily medicineBusinessAccountingInternal medicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Embracing EBVM as a concept is an important first step, but is of little value unless it is translated into an improvement in patient care. This session will discuss how EBVM can be incorporated into clinical guidelines at a practice level, using a team-based approach to maximise concordance. The pros and cons of using practice guidelines as a means of improving clinical effectiveness will be discussed, followed by an illustration of how the clinical audit cycle can be used as a tool to ensure that Best Practice as a established by practice guidelines is applied to produce an improvement in clinical performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.118
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.196
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1180.196
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.017
Scholarly communication0.0150.020
Open science0.0040.024
Research integrity0.0080.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.007

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 head0.546
GPT teacher head0.620
Teacher spread0.075 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary EvidenceSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207