MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199334174 · doi:10.1002/vrc2.189

A closed ‘pop‐off’ valve and patient safety incident: A human factors approach to understanding error

2021· article· en· W3199334174 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Record Case Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLimitingBreathingAnesthesiaLocal anaestheticSurgeryMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A 3‐month‐old, 1.4 kg, female domestic short hair cat was scheduled for ovariohysterectomy surgery during a final‐year veterinary student clinical rotation. Shortly after transfer to the operating room (OR) and connection to the anaesthetic machine, signs consistent with high gas pressure build up in the anaesthetic breathing system were observed. Because a clear view of the anaesthetic machine was obscured, the cat was immediately disconnected from the breathing system and transferred to a different anaesthetic machine. Inspection of the OR anaesthetic machine revealed that the adjustable pressure limiting (APL) (‘pop‐off') valve was closed, despite completion of a machine checkout procedure at the start of the day. The valve was opened, the cat returned to the OR, and surgery completed. Recovery was uneventful. Investigation of the incident revealed several contributing factors leading to the APL valve being left closed.

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.

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), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.194 · 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