Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physicians (ACEP) published a similar list. The two organizations collaborated on a joint document published in 2000, and the National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) participated in the 2005 revision. The 2005 revision included resources needed on ambulances for appropriate homeland security. All three organizations adhere to the principle that Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers at all levels must have the appropriate equipment and supplies to optimize prehospital delivery of care. The document was written to serve as a standard for the equipment needs of emergency ambulance services both in the United States and Canada. EMS providers care for patients of all ages, who have a wide variety of medical and traumatic conditions. The 2009 revision included updated pediatric recommendations developed by members of the federal Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMSC) Stakeholder Group and endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The EMSC Program has developed several performance measures for the Program’s State Partnership grantees. One of the performance measures evaluates the availability of essential pediatric equipment and supplies for Basic Life Support and Advanced Life Support patient care units. This document is used as the standard for this performance measure. The National Association of State EMS Officials (NASEMSO) has participated in the latest revision process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.268 | 0.101 |
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".