MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

New paramedic scope of practice in Poland based on the 2022 reform

2024· article· en· W4393029981 on OpenAlexaff
Katarzyna Nowak-Zając, Alicja Domagała, Iwona A. Bielska, Iwona Kowalska‐Bobko

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsHorizon 2020Narodowe Centrum NaukiEuropean Observatory on Health Systems and Policies
KeywordsScope of practiceLegislationScope (computer science)LegislatureContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)GermanWork (physics)Public administrationLawMedicinePolitical scienceEngineeringHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emergency medical systems in the world are mainly based on two main models: the Franco-German System (FGS) and the Anglo-American System (AAS). The characteristic feature of the FGS is the "Stay and Play" principle, while the AAS system is based on the "Scoop and Run" principle. The Polish model is a mix of those two systems mainly based on the work of paramedics. Their scope of operations and powers have changed over time. As a result of the advocacy undertaken by paramedics in Poland, legislation was drafted and became law in June 2023. The central changes include: the introduction of a paramedic register, the establishment of a professional self-government of paramedics, the expansion of professional competencies such as the ability to declare death, and new opportunities for professional development including speciality training or paid training leave. This article discusses the new law in the context of previous legislative solutions in the field of emergency medicine in Poland and in other European countries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.398 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PolicySame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207