First aid at the scene in the opinion of the members of Warsaw medical rescue teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction. The ability to provide first aid should be one of the basic skills of each of us. Aim. The aim of the study was to learn the opinion of the members of Medical Rescue Teams (MRT) of the “Meditrans” Provincial Ambulance and Sanitary Transport Service (PA and STS “Meditrans”) in Warsaw on how people react in real situations threatening life or health of the injured person. Material and methods. The study was conducted in the third quarter of 2015 on 335 members of medical rescue teams, including 77 women and 258 men, who provided medical services in the “Meditrans” Provincial Ambulance and Sanitary Transport Service MRT in Warsaw. The research tool was an anonymous questionnaire survey of own design, which consisted of 12 questions: closed, half open and one open question. Results. The majority of respondents have encountered instances of first aid provision, but respondents assessed the frequency of such situations as low. Among the largest group of witnesses providing first aid there are the elderly and youth, who are subjected to various forms of education related to first aid provision. Conclusions. Only continuous education and in particular, practical trainings will help people to overcome the barrier of their limitations in order to help others.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".