Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Coordination between physicians and allied professionals is essential to the effective delivery of care services and is associated with positive patient outcomes. As information technology can radically transform how professionals collaborate, both researchers and health care accreditation bodies are devoting a growing interest to the means of achieving better coordination. Introduction: The primary aim of this study is to explain the extent to which and how coordination practices between pathologists, technologists, and surgeons are transformed when telepathology is being implemented. Materials and Methods: An interpretive case study was conducted. A total of 60 semi-structured interviews with key participants were conducted, in addition to several days of direct observation of telepathology-based intraoperative consultations (IOC). Results: Three major kinds of transformation of coordination practices were observed. First, the telepathology system itself constrains and disrupts coordination routines, such as the presentation of slides. Second, anticipating IOC, proactively performed by the laboratory personnel in traditional settings, requires more formal requests in a telepathology context. Third, local technologists become more autonomous in performing complex macroscopy manipulations and managing the laboratory, tasks traditionally performed by pathologists. Conclusions: Successful coordination of work in a telepathology-based IOC context requires that significant transformations be anticipated and accounted for. Project managers need to formalize new work processes, support the transformations in professional roles and mitigate the major hindrances that small material changes may have on work routines.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".