MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379508780 · doi:10.1177/11786329231178767

Is 911 The Answer? A Retrospective Review of Emergency Medical Services Use by Home Care Providers

2023· review· en· W4379508780 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Services Insights · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical emergencyHealth careWork (physics)MedicineEmergency medical servicesMedical recordNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the Ontario healthcare system under strain the use of resources-particularly emergency medical services (EMS) is an increasing focus. Recent work has identified long-term care facilities as high users of EMS despite access to health-related support outside of the hospital. However, such insights are not available for home care. A retrospective review of administrative records of EMS calls drawn from over 6 million visits by home care providers found relatively low call rates: 8.4 calls per 100 000 personal support visits, 4.1 calls per 100 000 for rehabilitation providers, and 0.9 calls per 100 000 for nurses. The majority (85%) of calls resulted in transport to the hospital; the notable exception was fall-related events, and of these falls, a third (32%) were treated at home. Classification of reported physical symptoms suggests opportunities for leveraging in-home clinical specialists to avoid hospital transport where possible and preserve EMS capacity to respond to the most urgent and severe events.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.347 · 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