STUDY PROTOCOL Open Access Study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Regional networks have been recognized as an interesting model to support interdisciplinary and interorganizational interactions that lead to meaningful care improvements. Existing communities of practice within the a regional network, the Montreal Stroke Network (MSN) offers a compelling structure to better manage the exponential growth of knowledge and to support care providers to better manage the complex cases they must deal with in their practices. This research project proposes to examine internal and external factors that influence individual and organisational readiness to adopt national stroke best practices and to assess the impact of an e-collaborative platform in facilitating knowledge translation activities. Methods: We will develop an e-collaborative platform that will include various social networking and collaborative tools. We propose to create online brainstorming sessions ('jams') around each best practice recommendation. Jam postings will be analysed to identify emergent themes. Syntheses of these analyses will be provided to members to help them identify priority areas for practice change. Discussions will be moderated by clinical leaders, whose role will be to accelerate crystallizing of ideas around 'how to ' implement selected best practices. All clinicians (~200) involved in stroke care among the MSN will be asked to participate. Activities during face-to-face meetings and on the e-collaborative platform will be documented. Content analysis of all activities will be performed using an observation
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Open science Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | medium |
| gpt | Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.219 | 0.007 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".