Community Paramedicine Rapid Evidence Review and Practice Framework Scoping Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We will conduct a practice framework scoping exercise by engaging as a research team with expertise in community paramedicine across the following jurisdictions: ● Australia ● Canada ● Finland ● New Zealand ● United Kingdom ● United States of America We will also conduct a rapid review of the literature using the methodology recommended by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. The review will focus on community paramedicine literature published from 2001 through to the present, and will review evidence on the following topics: ● Scope of role ● Education including entry-level requirements ● Models of delivery to include clinical governance, supervision and other structural supports ● Outcomes from community paramedicine programmes
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 | 0.367 | 0.592 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.014 |
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".