MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6950785577 · doi:10.5683/sp3/4dze3i

DynIA: Dynamically Informed Allegories - final project report

2024· dataset· en· W6950785577 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2024
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Acidification Effects and Responses
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineHealth careTheme (computing)Christian ministryPopulationBest practiceAlternative medicineTest (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important strategy for improving population health is to use what we learn from medical research in our patient care. One approach to this is using the highest quality medical research to make recommendations and guide healthcare providers in deciding how to diagnose and treat their patients. These recommendations form the basis of healthcare tools that are called clinical practice guidelines. Theme four focused on strategies for increasing the uptake of clinical practice guidelines on low back pain and headache into community-based care. Theme four researchers collaborated with guideline developers in Alberta at the Institute of Health Economics and an organization called Towards Optimize Practice (TOP) that is sponsored by the Alberta Medical Association and the Alberta Ministry of Health (Alberta Health and Wellness). The research team first looked at what is already been known about uptake of guideline recommendations for chronic pain. This process involved going back to original research from around the world. Research librarians and scientists found 19 scientific papers that are relevant. Taken together, these studies indicated that the best approach to improving uptake of chronic pain guidelines into community care is to present them to care providers in special interactive educational settings where they are able to discuss the recommendations approaches with the educators. Theme four then went on to test this approach in the study of using an interactive educational workshop focused on the low back pain guideline. The study was conducted in collaboration with researchers from the University of Calgary and the University of Alberta. The workshop presenters were an expert team of physicians, physiotherapists, nurses and psychologists that traveled to the offices of the community healthcare providers. This study showed that the providers’ knowledge of low back pain increased after the workshop. When the medical records were examined, the researchers were unable to detect changes in how care was provided. This was a small study involving 24 providers. The researchers concluded that a larger study may confirm the increase in provider knowledge and detect changes in care.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
GenreDataset

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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorealisSame topicOcean Acidification Effects and ResponsesFrench-language works237,207