MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754301472 · doi:10.1186/s41077-017-0050-5

Simulation in the clinical setting: towards a standard lexicon

2017· article· en· W2754301472 on OpenAlexaff
Glenn Posner, Marcia Clark, Vincent Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Simulation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Ottawa Skills and Simulation CentreProcess Simulations Limited (Canada)University of CalgaryCanadian Network for Innovation in EducationUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatient safetyQuality (philosophy)Computer scienceHealth careRisk analysis (engineering)Process managementMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simulation-based educational activities are happening in the clinical environment but are not all uniform in terms of their objectives, delivery, or outputs. While these activities all provide an opportunity for individual and team training, nuances in the location, timing, notification, and participants impact the potential outcomes of these sessions and objectives achieved. In light of this, there are actually many different types of simulation-based activity that occur in the clinical environment, which has previously all been grouped together as "in situ" simulation. However, what truly defines in situ simulation is how the clinical environment responds in its' natural state, including the personnel, equipment, and systems responsible for care in that environment. Beyond individual and team skill sets, there are threats to patient safety or quality patient care that result from challenges with equipment, processes, or system breakdowns. These have been labeled "latent safety threats." We submit that the opportunity for discovery of latent safety threats is what defines in situ simulation and truly differentiates it from what would be more rightfully called "on-site" simulation. The distinction between the two is highlighted in this article, as well as some of the various sub-types of in situ simulation.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.009
Science and technology studies0.0040.027
Scholarly communication0.0280.027
Open science0.0080.011
Research integrity0.0110.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.431 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations55
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in SimulationSame topicSimulation-Based Education in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207