MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404296526 · doi:10.29173/cjen304

Do you know how to treat someone with a bleeding disorder?

2004· article· en· W4404296526 on OpenAlexaffvenue

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Emergency Nursing · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeed to knowMedicinePsychologyIntensive care medicineComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An event occurred in the emergency department that hopefully will summarize what I would like to communicate to all emergency personnel.A 20-year-old male with severe factor VIII hemophilia had ridden his bike off a four-foot loading dock, landing face first on the pavement.There apparently was a brief loss of consciousness.An onlooker called 911.Upon arrival of the paramedic crew, the patient explained his condition and asked if he could infuse his clotting factor.The patient's home was nearby.This was denied.On arrival at the emergency department, he was triaged.He was frantic that he infuse his factor right away, stating he was capable of doing so himself.This request was also refused.He was sent directly to the waiting room; no ice was offered.He applied pressure to the laceration on his forehead.At this point, the triage nurse felt he was stable.She saw a laceration that could wait, and there were more urgent cases ahead of this man.This patient was aware of the signs and seriousness of hitting his head but, unfortunately, the health care worker, with little or no awareness of hemophilia, did not understand nor listen.To a person with a bleeding disorder, this is a life-threatening bleed.Delays in administering factor concentrate could have serious consequences.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.007

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Emergency NursingSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207