MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7113237640

Being there in a crisis: increasing access to the paramedic profession for BME communities

2022· article· en· W7113237640 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePure (Coventry University) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupWorkforcePsychological interventionDiversity (politics)Agency (philosophy)Workforce developmentProfessional developmentContinuing professional developmentFocus groupHealth professionals
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2013-14, the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) reported that only 3.4% of paramedic learners with HEIs were from a minority ethnic background. Similarly, the National Ambulance Diversity Forum found that only 7.4% of paramedics employed nationally are from a minority ethnic background). Promoting ethnic diversity in paramedic education and the profession is beneficial as evidence suggests that having a workforce that represents the communities those health professionals serve reduces health inequalities. This project aims to improve access, participation and progression of minority ethnic groups, thus across the career cycle from pre-university to post-registration. Based on an asset-based community development model, the project offers enhancement opportunities for students to focus on their existing strengths and motivation, develop a sense of agency, build a supportive learning community, and empower each other to achieve their academic and professional potential. The interventions will therefore be co-designed with stakeholders (e.g., students, paramedics and community) as part of the project cycle.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.015
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.328 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venuePure (Coventry University)Same topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207