Paramedic perspectives of community paramedicine and quality of work life in Northern Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to understand the perspectives of paramedics regarding \ncommunity paramedicine (CP) and their quality of work life (QoWL) in Northern Ontario, \nCanada. Paramedics from eight emergency medical services (EMS) were recruited to participate \nin an online survey that was distributed to them via REDCap software. The survey contained \nseveral CP-specific questions and the 23-Item Work-Related Quality of Life Scale. The findings \nindicated that the vast majority of paramedics are in favour of CP, however repeated service \ninterruptions, a lack of training, and patient data tracking were identified as issues that should be \nmitigated to ensure successful CP program development in the future. There was a statistically \nsignificant relationship between paramedic participation in CP and QoWL. These findings have \nimplications for EMS employers and decision-makers related to the effectiveness of CP program \nactivities, and they provide emerging insight into the relationship between QoWL and CP in \nNorthern Ontario.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".