MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7075319634

Community Paramedicine Rapid Evidence Review and Practice Framework Scoping Exercise

2022· other· en· W7075319634 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality and Resources Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Systematic reviewScope of practiceMEDLINEEvidence-based practiceBest practice
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science, Insufficient 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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8840.347

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)Same topicWater Quality and Resources StudiesFrench-language works237,207