MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Positive feedback in the paediatric emergency department

2019· letter· en· W2964695175 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
K. I. M. McKinnon, Ana Waddington, Jessica Schofield, Tessa Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExcellenceEmergency departmentWork (physics)Quarter (Canadian coin)Falling (accident)Accident and emergencyHealth careMedical emergencyNursingMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Paediatric Emergency Department (ED) at the Royal London Hospital is part of a trauma centre and Children’s Hospital. The Greatix positive reporting system was introduced with the aim of recognising the great work of the department. The ‘Learning from Excellence’ movement has shown how positive feedback can improve patient care and staff development.1 Approximately a quarter of trainee doctors and a fifth of trainers report burn-out from work,2 and rates of recruitment and retention for nurses are falling,3 so projects to improve staff morale are urgently required. Positive feedback such as the Greatix system can form part of recognition for team members. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement advocates this towards improving ‘Joy in Work’, …

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.333 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in ChildhoodSame topicHealthcare Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207