MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Looking Across Ontario : How Stroke Community Navigators Are Using Canadian Best Practice Guidelines To Improve Patient Outcomes

2017· other· en· W6946435859 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationWork (physics)Quality (philosophy)Context (archaeology)Health care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Stroke Community Navigator (SCN) is a healthcare professional that provides support for stroke survivors and their family to positively enhance the transitions across the continuum of care. The services provided by SCNs vary across Ontario, depending on the specific needs of the region. This e-poster will compare Stroke Navigation across 3 diverse regions in Ontario; including West Greater Toronto Area, Windsor- Essex County and North- East Ontario. The e-poster will provide an overview of the role of SCN, services provided, work setting, number of clients served and the assessment tools utilized, as well as the alignment of each variable with Canadian Best Practice Guidelines (CBPG). Trained and committed SCNs provide holistic care and guidance which helps to improve the stroke recovery experience and improve the clientu2019s quality of life. They are able to ease the adjustment to post-stoke life through education, improving access to healthcare services and connections to appropriate care providers. Both rural and urban population are supported through SCNs who work in various clinical area including but not limited to; acute care, rehabilitation units, outpatient clinics and the community at large. These three centers provide stroke navigation through healthcare professionals who integrate the CBPGs for stroke into their models for delivering care. The e-poster will show how three regions have implemented the CBPGs to meet the various needs of their unique communities. It will further highlight the essential elements of navigation which support clients at various stages of transitions along the care continuum.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0220.011
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0290.036
Open science0.0200.027
Research integrity0.0020.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.254 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library)French-language works237,207