MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Teamwork Assessment Tools in Obstetric Emergencies: A Systematic Review

2018· review· en· W2792727004 on OpenAlexaff
Desire N. Onwochei, Shravanti Halpern, Mrinalini Balki

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetric Anesthesia Digest · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTeamworkMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(Simul Healthc. 2017;12(3):165–176) Interdisciplinary collaboration is essential in cases of obstetric emergencies, but breakdowns in team communication can have adverse effects on maternal and fetal outcomes. Although many teamwork assessment tools exist, it remains unclear whether a specific tool is better adapted for assessment in obstetric emergency scenarios than another. In this qualitative systematic review, the authors searched the medical literature for prospective studies in order to find and evaluate the tools available for obstetric emergency team assessment.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.008
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetric Anesthesia DigestSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207