The application of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test in the emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term "evidence-based practice" has evolved over the past several years in scope and definition.In the early 1990s, when this term seems to have first appeared, it focused on the promotion of best evidence in medicine (termed evidence-based medicine).Since then, it has evolved from "expert opinion" for establishing guidelines to a more formal, quantitative and sophisticated research approach.Today, the term evidence-based practice is more widely used to incorporate a multidisciplinary approach in the provision of quality patient care.Claiming to be "evidence-based" in today's world conveys a measure of credibility that is invaluable.Thus, it is important to be clear on what evidence-based practice really means.Fundamentally, it is important to realize that evidence-based practice begins and ends with the patient.It requires that decisions about health care are based on the best available current, valid and relevant evidence, and that these decisions are made by the patient, informed by those providing the care, within the context of available resources (Dawes et al., 2005).Ignoring research evidence risks benefit to the patient and may implicate potential harm.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".