MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3184695058 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2021.26550

Health Professional Redeployment and Cross-Training in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

2021· article· en· W3184695058 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lisa Walker, Amanda Pontefract, Debra A. Bournes

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCancer Care OntarioCanadian Psychological Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)NursingBest practice2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Training (meteorology)PsychologyMedicineMedical educationPolitical scienceVirologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 required hospitals to respond quickly and effectively to ensure the availability of healthcare professionals to care for patients. The Ottawa Hospital in Ottawa, ON, used a five-step process to ensure organizational readiness for redeployment of regulated health professionals as and when necessary: (1) define current scopes of practice; (2) obtain discipline-specific input; (3) develop strategies based on literature review and government dictates; (4) identify potential duties; and (5) ensure support for staff. With hospital management support, this plan was readily implemented. Results are discussed in terms of operational outcomes (e.g., number and type of deployments) and staff experience. Outcomes were positive and led to recommendations for improved organizational readiness.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Quarterly→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→