Bibliographic record
Abstract
his issue of HQ is full of surprises!The editorial board has taken a broad perspective on healthcare this quarter, and has assembled an interesting set of readings that I hope you will enjoy.We begin with an article by Trevor Hancock who is well-known for his passion for healthy communities.Quite rightly, Trevor emphasizes that health is more than health services and that the determinants of health are complex interrelated factors including but not exclusive to wealth, education, the environment and employment.How complicated our healthcare world becomes when we try to fit the role of hospitals in this broader framework.But please keep reminding us, Trevor.We need to address all determinants of health when we create healthy public policy.The theme of the second feature, by Sholom Glouberman, is also the environment.Sholom provides a step-by-step history of the Walkerton affair from 1995 onwards and offers excellent insights and lessons we can all learn from this experience.We conclude with a case study from Cambridge Memorial Hospital -the first hospital in North America to achieve ISO 14001 designation.Next, Anna Day and Leslie MacMillan make the case for implementing a model of hospitalist physicians in acute care hospitals.The plight of the "orphan patient" is on the minds of many people -both those within the system and those on the consumer side.Day and MacMillan describe the role hospitalists might play in easing the tension.They also discuss the steps that will need to be taken to support and sustain the concept.This view is shared by William MacDonald and Lynda Monick at Windsor's Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital, which implemented a hospitalist system several years ago.Conversely, Kenneth Hook and Jan Kasperski from the Ontario College of Family Physicians offer fiery counter discussion outlining some of the problems with going in the hospitalist direction.In a related topic, what is the real story about the supply of physicians in Canada?John Millar's article, based on CIHI data, sheds some light on this issue.We are delighted to continue our on-going series on nursing issues and the impact on hospitals with a paper from Heather Clarke and her colleagues.This group of nurse researchers is participating in an international research project looking at the quality of the work experience for nurses and its negative or positive impact on nurses' satisfaction with their jobs.The authors also provide a series of strategies to help recruit and retain nurses.We are also pleased to present readers with the regular columns and features they have come to expect in Hospital Quarterly.
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 | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.251 | 0.132 |
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".