MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217285436

Effets des législations imposant des ratios minimaux obligatoires de personnel infirmier - Une synthèse des preuves scientifiques

2020· article· fr· W3217285436 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carl‐Ardy Dubois, Roxane Borgès Da Silva, Mélanie Lavoie‐Tremblay, Sean P. Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueCIRANO Project Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En dépit de l’intérêt croissant suscité par les ratios minimaux obligatoires, les effets qui y sont associés sont encore mal connus et font l’objet de vifs débats tant dans les milieux scientifiques que dans les milieux professionnels, politiques et de prise de décision. Au Québec, l’adoption d’une législation sur les ratios minimaux obligatoires constitue l’une des revendications centrales de la Fédération interprofessionnelle de la santé du Québec, organisation regroupant les principaux syndicats représentant le personnel infirmier. Le gouvernement lui-même a déployé un ensemble de projets pilotes en vue d’expérimenter des ratios dans divers secteurs de soins et recueillir des données qui pourront guider ses orientations futures. Ce rapport, mandaté par le Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux du Québec (MSSS) s’inscrit dans ce contexte et vise à rassembler, à partir de la littérature scientifique, les preuves qui peuvent contribuer à éclairer la prise de décision politique par rapport à l’imposition législative de ratios obligatoires.

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)0.087
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.200
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0870.200
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.003

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 head0.210
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCIRANO Project ReportsSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207