Bibliographic record
Abstract
I recently participated in the Ontario Hospital Association (OHA) webinar on quality and safety, in which I was asked to address the topic of engaging physicians in performance measurement, quality and safety. I am not a physician, but much of my work in healthcare has involved working with clinical leaders in these areas. At St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, we started our quality and safety journey by creating a medical quality scorecard specifically designed for physicians. The card, written in physician-friendly versus business language, enabled physicians to drop the traditional business quadrants of finance and human resources and select four quadrants focused on clinical process and outcome indicators that matched their daily practice. Quality improvement initiatives resulting from the scorecard included the launch of a sepsis-management campaign in the emergency room and a new approach to neonatal safety.
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 | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.019 |
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".