MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2763513908 · doi:10.1093/pch/20.5.e90a

155: Impact of a Volunteer Program for Research in a Pediatric Emergency Department

2015· article· en· W2763513908 on OpenAlexaff
AJ Lespérance, Maryse Lagacé, Ryan Cook, Jocelyn Gravel

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentVolunteerMedical emergencyMedicineEmergency medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important proportion of children visit the emergency department (ED) in the evening and during the week-end. This limits recruitment for research in pediatric ED because it is more challenging to hire research assistants for this time period. The PIEUVRES program involves 12 hours of formal training for first and second year medical students to become research assistants in the ED. Following their training and support from research coordinators, they are able to recruit research participants in a pediatric ED. There is very limited data about the impact of such a volunteer program on research in a clinical setting. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the additional number of children recruited by a group of medical students volunteer in the research program PIEUVRES. This was an observational study reporting the number of children recruited by the volunteers during PIEUVRES program during the academic year of 2013–14. Volunteers worked a 6-hour recruitment shift per week during a semester. These shifts were distributed among the evenings of the week (4PM–10PM) and during the week-end (10AM–10PM). At the end of each shift they reported the number of patients approached and recruited for each of the (7 eligible) studies. During the study period, there was seven studies for which volunteers could have recruited. The volunteer program occurred from October 19th 2013 until May 11 2014. During this period, the volunteers approached a total of 692 children/families and recruited 262 participants (38%) during 184 shifts. Most patients were recruited for the five observational studies while only 3/9 and 9/38 (recruited/approached) patients were recruited for the two interventional trials. No ethical problem or complaints were received from the families in relation to their interaction with the volunteers. The volunteer program permitted to recruit an important amount of research participants in a pediatric emergency department. This improvement required small financial and human resources.

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)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.268
GPT teacher head0.583
Teacher spread0.315 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicHealth Sciences Research and Education→French-language works237,207→