MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755679507 · doi:10.12927/hcpap.2017.25203

Medical Laboratory Technologists as Positive Quality Improvement Team Members

2017· article· en· W2755679507 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Dennis Kendel

Bibliographic record

VenueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be Healthy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomedical and Engineering Education
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Health Quality Council
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality managementQuality (philosophy)Medical physicsMedical laboratoryMedical educationMedicineEngineering managementComputer scienceEngineeringOperations managementNursingPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While Medical Laboratory Technologists (MLTs) do not generally work directly with clinical healthcare teams they have proven to be invaluable contributors to team-based systematic quality improvement in healthcare. They were early adopters of standardized systemic performance measures coupled with explicit strategies for improving suboptimal performance. Their attentiveness to systemic analysis of systemic factors influencing performance has proven to be valuable in our quest to make care optimally safe and high quality.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueA Nudge Too Far? A Nudge at All? On Paying People to Be HealthySame topicBiomedical and Engineering EducationFrench-language works237,207