Who is the real team leader? Comparing leadership performance of the team leader and CPR Coach during simulated cardiac arrest
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To describe the leadership performance of team leaders and CPR Coaches, and to determine if there is a correlation between leadership scores and CPR performance during management of simulated pediatric cardiac arrest events. This is a secondary analysis of data from a prior randomized controlled trial. We observed the performance of both team leaders and CPR coaches during the management of an 18-minute simulated cardiac arrest scenario which was run for 20 resuscitation teams comprised of CPR-certified professionals from four pediatric tertiary care centers. CPR Coaches were responsible for providing real-time verbal feedback of CPR performance to compressors. Two raters were trained to use the Behavioral Assessment Tool (BAT) to assess leadership performance of the team leader and CPR Coach. BAT scores of team leaders and CPR coaches were compared and linked with objective CPR performance. There was no significant difference between the BAT scores of team leaders and CPR coaches (median score 27/40 vs 28.8/40, p = 0.16). Higher BAT scores of team leaders were significantly associated with higher percentage of excellent CPR (r = 0.52, p = 0.02), while higher BAT scores of CPR coaches were significantly associated with higher chest compression fraction (r = 0.48, p = 0.03). Both team leaders and CPR coaches have similarly high leadership performance during the management of simulated cardiac arrest. Leadership behaviors were associated with quality of CPR performance. Clinical Trial Registration: Registration ID: NCT02539238; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it