A roadmap for change: charting the course of the development of a new, advanced role for radiation therapists.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new model of care has been piloted in Ontario that expands the role of radiation therapists to improve access and treatment quality for patients requiring radiation therapy. The advanced practice Clinical Specialist Radiation Therapist (CSRT) role was created to redistribute activities amongst healthcare team members, allowing each to work to the full scope of practice, thereby better streamlining services, addressing systematic pressures in the existing model of care, and increasing patients' access to treatment. This paper provides an overview of the approaches used to develop and implement an advanced practice (AP) role, and it offers guidance on the use of an evidence-based approach to the evaluation of such positions. This article also utilizes the experience and knowledge developed during the CSRT projects to provide a framework for organizations embarking on similar AP implementation initiatives.
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 | 0.044 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".