Building bridges and moving upstream: Paramedics as policy architects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The addition of a Policy and Strategy pathway to the Career Framework for Paramedics in Canada represents a pivotal advancement for the profession, attempting to address our longstanding absence in senior health policy roles. In this commentary we explore the concept of paramedics in policymaking, emphasising the unique perspectives paramedics bring to strategic decision-making, creating novel career pathways, and enhancing professionalisation. Positioned at the intersection of healthcare, public safety, and social services, paramedics can offer invaluable insights into systemic barriers and patient needs. Their inclusion in policymaking fora aligns with global health trends, such as interprofessional collaboration, an increasing focus on sustainability, and acknowledging the need for harm reduction approaches, particularly in drug policy. By enabling paramedics to engage in high-level strategy and policy direction setting, the profession can help to address key systemic challenges including patient safety, quality of care, and equitable healthcare governance. This pathway can not only strengthen paramedicine's influence but also enhances the resilience and inclusivity of healthcare systems, contributing to better outcomes for patients and communities.The publisher's final version of this work can be found at https://doi.org/10.1177/27536386251336008. Deposited by shareyourpaper.org and openaccessbutton.org. We've taken reasonable steps to ensure this content doesn't violate copyright. However, if you think it does you can request a takedown by emailing help@openaccessbutton.org.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".