Bridging the Gap in Health Personnel and Elderly Communication Training: What Can We Learn From Speech Codes Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective communication in healthcare settings allows for the expression of complex or technical terms in a manner that each patient can understand. Communication is also linked to increased trust, patient and family satisfaction, and mutual agreement between patients and healthcare personnel. As a result of aging, the elderly (age 65 and older) may develop physical, cognitive, and social changes that may lead to barriers when interacting with healthcare personnel. As a result of these age-related changes, the elderly ability to receive, retain, and convey information may be affected. Therefore, it is essential that healthcare personnel use appropriate language when communicating with this population. Studies have suggested that simulation can be an effective means to train healthcare personnel to develop context-appropriate communication skills for this specific population. This editorial will explore how the Speech Codes Theory (SCT) can structure simulation encounters to enhance healthcare personnel's proficiency in conversing and connecting with this patient population.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".