Process and findings informing the development of a provincial emergency medicine network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe the process undertaken to inform the development of the recently launched British Columbia (BC) Emergency Medicine Network (EM Network). Five methods were undertaken: (1) a scoping literature review, (2) a survey of BC emergency practitioners and EM residents, (3) key informant interviews, (4) focus groups in sites across BC, and (5) establishment of a brand identity. There were 208 survey respondents: 84% reported consulting Internet resources once or more per emergency department shift; however, 26% reported feeling neutral, somewhat unsatisfied, or very unsatisfied with searching for information on the Internet to support their practice. Enthusiasm was expressed for envisioned EM Network resources, and the key informant interviews and focus group results helped identify and refine key desired components of the EM Network. In describing this, we provide guidance and lessons learned for health leaders and others who aspire to establish similar clinical networks, whether in EM or other medical disciplines.
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 | 0.074 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".