Paramedic-Focused Recommendations \nfor the Design of a Medical Identification System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, the design of medical identification jewelry has failed to \nconsider the needs of paramedics, a major user group. Medical jewelry designs mimic \ncontemporary jewelry styles and often feature irrelevant information, qualities that \nreduce their visibility and usefulness in an emergency. My thesis outlines a set \nof design recommendations, accompanied by a list of design requirements and a \ncompliancy table, for medical jewelry that the user needs of paramedics. \nThe thesis draws upon open-ended interviews with paramedics from \naround the province of Ontario, to analyze the tacit and explicit knowledge that \nparamedics use when gathering information in medical emergencies. The analysis \nis used to develop a first iteration of design recommendations, which are presented \nto focus groups for feedback. Using a list of design requirements and a compliancy \ntable formulated from my interview data, I judge three concepts to be especially \npromising, and have developed them as high-fidelity prototypes.
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 | 0.020 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.006 |
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".