Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To introduce a cognitive approach – cognitive task analysis (CTA) – for the usability evaluation of evidence‐based nursing (EBN) websites. Design/methodology/approach With the justification of the need for new evaluation methodologies for the usability of EBN websites and the provision of the theoretical framework and implications of CTA, the author proposes detailed steps for the usability evaluation of EBN websites. Findings CTA is a new approach that can be used for the evaluation of the usability of EBN websites. It has the advantages that conventional evaluation methods lack in characterizing the aspects of websites useful to nurses in carrying out evidence‐based practices. Originality/value This paper, with the introduction of a new cognitive approach, helps ensure the effective evaluation of the EBN websites, which can then be improved to adequately meet the requirements and information processing needs of the nurses practising evidence‐based nursing.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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 it